A 54-year-old man (“C”) was awarded compensation of £56,366.08 for inadequate failure to investigate the cause of a post -operative swelling which developed following knee arthroscopy in May 2016. He had to have further extensive surgeries and was left with permanent discomfort and scarring.
Over £56,000 to a 54-year-old Man When Swelling After Knee Arthroscopy Was Not Investigated Promptly
In 2016, C had originally had knee arthroscopies (exploratory surgery) on both of his knees and removal of a bursa (small fluid-filled sac) his right knee. Six weeks later he returned to hospital complaining of significant swelling to both legs which was affecting his mobility. He was examined and deep vein thrombosis (blood clots in his legs) was ruled out. As he had pitting oedema (swelling and change of appearance in the skin) of both legs it was thought his problems may be related to his heart. He was referred back to his GP for further investigations.
As he continued to have problems with swelling of both legs, he was referred back to hospital to carry out more tests for deep vein thrombosis. His GP arranged for him to have an injection of the anticoagulant, Fragmin.
Shortly after that he attended the Accident and Emergency department complaining of a blood clot in his left calf. He was suspected of having raised pressure in his left calf, known as ‘compartment syndrome’. Fasciotomies were performed on his left lower leg to relieve the pressure. Two days later he underwent a CT angiogram. The CT showed a mass measuring some 8cm thought to be a haematoma (a collection of blood). He then underwent a procedure to remove the haematoma. A few days later he had to have a split skin graft to his left lower leg.
In his claim, it was alleged that the hospital had failed to adequately assess and diagnose his post- operative swelling. The delay in recognising that he had developed a haematoma that needed surgical removal, caused the haematoma to increase in size. This meant that he required more extensive surgery in the form of fasciotomies, and to remove the haematoma, as well as a skin grafting procedure.
Liability was admitted. The hospital admitted that if it had carried out blood tests at the end of May, arranged a scan to rule out DVT at that point, then the mass would have been identified earlier as a haematoma. It could then have been drained off or evacuated whilst it was still relatively small in size.
As a consequence of the negligence, he was left with scarring measuring some 22cm long medially and 24 cm by 2cm laterally. He experienced discomfort and cramps in his leg, which would wake him up at night. Further the scar tissue would break down. He was left with diminished sensation in the area of the scarring. It was thought that he would have to undergo two or three further plastic surgeries to improve his leg.
Settlement was reached out of court for the total sum of £56,366.08.
This was made up as follows:
Pain, suffering and loss of amenity: £41,752.65
Future care and travel costs: £10,800.
Past care, assistance and travel costs: £3,200.
