Implant scandal surrounding Bernese star surgeon First the victim speaks of a "ticking time bomb" in her back - then the trial day ends in a strange way
What is probably the biggest trial against a doctor in recent Swiss history has begun in Bern. The focus: an implant that failed in patients - and a surgeon who has to answer for it.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- A Bernese surgeon is on trial for using faulty intervertebral disc implants.
- Seven patients suffered damage to their health.
- The prosecution accuses him of grievous bodily harm, among other things.
- Two victims and the surgeon's former assistant doctor were questioned on the first day of the trial.
"I constantly have it in my head that there is a ticking time bomb inside me," said a man before the Bern-Mittelland Regional Court. He is one of two victims who were questioned on Monday as part of the Bern implant scandal.
Like six other patients, he made a momentous decision more than ten years ago: the insertion of a supposedly groundbreaking intervertebral disc prosthesis.
The implant failed in all seven patients and left physical damage to the spine, the public prosecutor's office writes in the indictment. One patient made it public three years ago that the implant in her back had disintegrated and eaten holes in the vertebrae.
Serious accusations against the surgeon
They were all operated on and advised by a renowned Bernese surgeon. He is also the one in the dock this week. The charges are serious, including grievous bodily harm and violations of the Therapeutic Products Act. The presumption of innocence applies until a final conviction is handed down.
The trial at which he has to answer is one of the biggest trials against a doctor in this country in recent decades. The court has scheduled more than a week for the trial. In addition to the doctor, patients, a head physician at a Zurich hospital who is familiar with the matter, the surgeon's former assistant doctor and another expert are to have their say.
The focus is on big questions: How much detail should a doctor provide about possible risks? When are follow-up checks mandatory? Does a doctor have to disclose his own financial interests?
Media reports made the scandal public
The case was made public in 2018 by an international research team with the involvement of Tamedia. The surgeon allegedly provided scientific support for the development of the "Cadisc-L" intervertebral disc implant and used the product himself on seven patients at the Salem Hospital in Bern between 2011 and 2013.
The prosthesis was sold by the British company Ranier, which has since gone bankrupt and for which the accused Bernese doctor was a member of the scientific advisory board and received compensation.
Cadisc-L" is a plastic implant designed to replace damaged intervertebral discs. In comparison with other prostheses, "Cadisc-L" was intended to retain more flexibility in the spine.
Indictment speaks of immature implants
According to the indictment, animal tests with the prosthesis had already shown defects. Despite this, the product was launched on the market in 2010. Dozens of patients across Europe are said to have suffered serious complications as a result. The implant was later recalled.
According to the public prosecutor, the surgeon is alleged to have inserted the immature implants despite the lack of long-term studies on their effectiveness. He is also alleged to have let patients down afterwards, for example by not carrying out follow-up checks when the defects had long been known.
The accused, whose questioning is not scheduled until Thursday, denied the allegations in the past. His lawyer told the Tamedia newspapers that her client had "behaved correctly both legally and in terms of professional ethics".
Trial day 1: Victims are questioned
The two victims questioned before the regional judges, both of whom are also acting as private plaintiffs, testified that the doctor had recommended the use of the "Cadisc-L" prosthesis as the best option and had not compared it with other prosthesis models. In addition, he had not disclosed that he himself was involved in the development of the implant and that he had earned money from it - and that there was therefore a possible conflict of interest. "He was the specialist and I trusted him," said a former patient in the Bern courtroom on Monday.
The surgeon had pointed out that "Cadisc-L" was new. However, when asked, he denied that it was an experimental system. When asked about possible late complications, the accused said: "With this prosthesis, you have a lifelong guarantee."
However, the patients interviewed no longer remember the details of the discussions with the defendant. Too many years have passed since the operations.
This is also the case for the surgeon's former assistant doctor, who was also summoned on Monday and was involved in two "Cadisc-L" operations in 2012 and 2013. She was unable to provide any information about the individual operations or details about the prosthesis.
However, the accused "took a lot of time to get to know the patients". He also listed the risks: "As far as I could tell, he did this thoroughly."
Court prohibits mentioning names
The fact that this is no everyday trial is also clear from the lively media interest: seven journalists attended the first day of the trial. However, there are restrictions for them: They are not allowed to keep a live ticker on the first two days. According to the court, real-time media coverage poses the risk of influencing witnesses and respondents.
Furthermore, the doctor's name may not be mentioned. The court conceded that he had been disclosed in media reports in 2023. However, he was still actively working as a doctor at the time. He is now retired. Furthermore, he was not a well-known person of public interest, as would be the case with a political office holder, for example.
An appeal against this decision was lodged with the High Court on Monday. The aim is to ensure that the obligation to report anonymously does not apply for the time being.
A private plaintiff who doesn't want to be one
The conclusion of the first day of the trial was also unusual: when asked what she hoped to gain from the trial as a private prosecutor, the patient said: "That's a misunderstanding, I didn't want to be a private prosecutor."
She had slipped into this role on the advice of a public prosecutor from her home canton so that she could stay up to date. She will be excused for the remaining days of the trial.
On Tuesday, the remaining five patients who were victims of a defective prosthesis will be questioned. blue News will continue to report on the trial.