Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:36:26.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pre-operative information in mastoidectomy: what about the facial nerve and hearing loss?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

P. J. Wormald*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory 7925, Cape Town, South Africa
*
Address for correspondence: P. J. Wormald, Department of Otolaryngology, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory 7925, Cape Town, South Africa.

Abstract

Facial nerve palsy and hearing impairment are accepted risks of mastoid surgery. However, at present there are no guidelines as to whether a patient must be informed of the potential risk to the facial nerve and hearing during mastoid surgery. Currently the law states that the surgeon should do what a ‘reasonable doctor’ would do under similar circumstances but exactly what this entails is not clear. A recent publication established that 16 per cent of British surgeons did not tell their patients about the risk to the facial nerve and 13 per cent about the risk of hearing loss. A survey of South African surgeons showed a different picture with only 57 per cent of surgeons informing their patients of possible facial nerve injury and 71 per cent about hearing loss. One of the reasons stated was that this information might deter the patient from having a necessary operation. This raises the question of excessive information disclosure and its possible legal consequences if excessive information leads a patient into making an unbalanced judgment owing to his/her lack of medical training, prejudices or personality. In this survey 25 per cent of South African surgeons have had patients refuse surgery after being informed of the risk to facial nerve and hearing. The decision whether to inform the patient about these risks should be individualized for every patient after the surgeon has audited his/her results and assessed the patients prejudices, personality and level of education.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the South African Society of Otorhinolaryngology's Annual Meeting in October 1994

References

Dawes, P. (1994) Informed consent: questionnaire survey of British otolaryngologists. Clinical Otolaryngology 19: 388393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawes, P., Davison, P. (1994) Informed consent: what do patients want to know? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 87: 149152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawes, P., O'Keefe, L., Adock, S. (1993) Informed consent: using a structured interview changes patients' attitudes towards informed consent. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 107: 775779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerrigan, D., Thevasagayam, R., Woods, T., McWelch, I., Thomas, W., Shorthouse, A., Dennison, A. (1993) Who's afraid of informed consent? British Medical Journal 306: 298300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavelle-Jones, C., Byrne, D., Rice, P., Cuschieri, A. (1993) Factors affecting quality of informed consent. British Medical Journal 306: 885890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nissele, P. (1993) The right to know – the need to disclose. Australian Family Physician 22: 374377.Google Scholar
Smyth, G. (1992) Toynbee Memorial Lecture 1992: Facts and fantasies in modern otology: the ear doctor's dilemma. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 106: 591596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Oosten, F. (1992) The doctor's duty of disclosure and excessive information liability. Medical Law 11: 633639.Google ScholarPubMed