Bern implant scandal "If I had known ..." - Patients reproach star surgeons

One of the biggest medical trials in Switzerland is underway in Bern. It centers on a surgeon and a faulty implant. Five patients report a lack of information and aftercare.

The Bern-Mittelland Regional Court questioned five people on the second day of the trial. In the dock is a well-known Bernese surgeon who is accused of grievous bodily harm. All five of those questioned were his patients. And all five have or had an implant in their body that failed and caused damage to the spine.

Specifically, it is about the "Cadisc-L" intervertebral disc prosthesis. The surgeon is accused of inserting the immature implant in a total of seven patients despite a lack of evidence regarding its effectiveness. He is also alleged to have abandoned the patients afterwards, for example by not calling them in for follow-up checks when he had long been aware of the implant defects. The presumption of innocence applies until a final conviction is handed down.

The trial has been going on in Bernsince Monday and will continue at least until the end of the week. It is one of the biggest trials against a doctor in recent Swiss history. The oral hearing is scheduled for February 9.

Animal experiments revealed shortcomings

The accused 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". The questioning of the surgeon is not planned before Thursday.

Cadisc-L" is a plastic implant designed to replace damaged intervertebral discs. The defendant was directly involved in the development of the prosthesis, chaired the scientific advisory board of the British manufacturing company Ranier and was compensated for this.

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 and the company went bankrupt.

Trial day 2: Patients are questioned

The stories of suffering of the patients affected are individual. In the case of two women, for example, the implant in their back broke into several pieces, while in others the prosthesis sank into the vertebral bodies. However, their statements in court are congruent in many respects. The surgeon had advertised "Cadisc-L" as the best option for all of them. Although the possibility of stiffening the vertebrae was also discussed, the doctor did not make any comparisons with other prosthesis models.

The defendant also failed to inform the patients about his mandate with the manufacturing company and his involvement in the development of the prosthesis. One patient commented: "If I had known that he himself was involved, a second opinion would have been important for me."

The word "trust" was used several times on Tuesday. "I trusted him", "he was the specialist" or "I trusted that he would give me the right thing" were some of the responses. The surgeon had explained the normal surgical risks before the procedure, but not the specific risks of the prosthesis or the inadequate results of animal experiments. "I would have needed this knowledge to decide whether I wanted to take the risk or not," said one patient in annoyance.

"Then I would have been spared a lot"

The surgeon's lack of aftercare is also criticized. For example, one woman only found out about the recall of the prosthesis after her prosthesis had been removed due to medical problems - the accused had not informed her. "I wish I had been told, then I would certainly have been spared a lot," she said in the regional court.

Those affected deal with the procedure, which took place over a decade ago, in different ways. One patient describes how she still suffers from severe restrictions and pain to this day and "has to motivate myself every day". One man, on the other hand, has come to terms with the fact that he still has the implant in his back. However, he is worried that it could get worse one day.

Brief moments of lightness

Despite all the seriousness and the major implications of the procedure, there were also some light-hearted moments on Tuesday. When, shortly before the lunch break, both the prosecution and the defense requested that another doctor be summoned to testify, the defendant's lawyer commented: "Now, for once, we are of one mind." And when it becomes clear that this should work despite the short time window, because the doctor in question has registered as a visitor for the coming days anyway, most of those present curl their lips into a smile.

The same happens when the presiding judge wants to know from a witness why, according to his own statements, there are also court files in the folder full of documents he has brought with him. The witness then reads out the sender - and mentions the name of the questioner. He looks puzzled at first and then resolves: "That must be the witness summons."