Bristol colorectal surgeon Anthony Dixon struck off

Bristol colorectal surgeon, Anthony (Tony) Dixon, has been struck off after leaving more than 200 patients in agony.

Our specialist medical negligence solicitors have assisted some of Dixon’s former patients in making claims for their harm and suffering.

What are the allegations against Tony Dixon?

Mr Dixon was found by two separate professional tribunals to have operated on patients without informed consent. One of the operations considered at the tribunal was not clinically indicated (that there was a valid medical reason to suggest the surgery, and it was therefore appropriate to offer it). The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service ordered that Mr Dixon be struck off the register. He was also found to have dishonestly fabricated patient records. 

Reports from Spire Hospital and Southmead Hospital

In 2024, Spire Hospital in Bristol (a private hospital) released its review into Mr Dixon’s practice and found 259 cases where harm had been caused. These included:

• Failures to properly investigate patients before a surgical procedure
• Failure to offer alternative (including conservative treatments)
• Poor consenting practices

Even before the Spire’s review, Southmead Hospital (an NHS hospital) had found that 203 mesh operations were deemed to be unnecessary, and non-surgical treatments should have been offered instead.

How our team is supporting patients affected by Mr Dixon’s medical negligence

Barcan and Kirby’s medical negligence lawyers are, unfortunately, familiar with Dixon’s poor practice. This year, Charlotte Tracy, Senior Associate, settled a case against Mr Dixon.

Case study: claim for unnecessary surgery, lack of consent and lasting harm

Initial symptoms and misdiagnosis

Our client, James*, had seen his GP several times regarding trouble with urination and pain in his back passage during sexual activity. After review by a urologist, there was a concern that he had symptoms of prostatitis (inflammation of the prostate). James’ symptoms fluctuated and, some months later, he was seen by the urologist again, who started therapy to treat these. The urologist suspected an enlarged prostate.

As symptoms were ongoing, these were discussed between a urologist and pain management expert, at which time it was highlighted that James had experienced a feeling of a “ball” in his rectum. This raised a concern about prolapse, and James was referred to colorectal surgeon, Mr Anthony Dixon.

Referral for colorectal surgery

James first saw Mr Dixon in spring 2015; Mr Dixon noted a one-year history of discomfort in James’ rectum, but with no urgency or faecal incontinence. There was evidence of intussusception (one part of the bowel ‘telescoping’ into another). An examination was arranged, and Mr Dixon warned James that if intussusception was found to be the problem, he would offer a laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (‘LVMR’) procedure. This is a surgery to treat rectal prolapse. Keyhole surgery is used to attach mesh to help support the rectum and keep it in its correct position, keeping it from telescoping or protruding.

The examination procedure found intussusception. Mr Dixon reviewed James, and his recommendation was to correct the problem with surgery. He wrote in a letter that there was “no role for biofeedback or physiotherapy, which might make things worse”.

In early summer 2015, Mr Dixon wrote that James had opted for the LVMR procedure. James had no recollection that any alternative measures (including non-surgical approaches) were discussed with him. Mr Dixon wrote that there was ‘every chance’ the procedure would alleviate his symptoms. Two months later, James underwent the surgery, having consented on the morning of the procedure. He had a stormy post-operative period, experiencing pain, fever and chills/shivering, which saw him return to hospital for treatment for infection.

On review around two months after surgery, Mr Dixon wrote that all of James’ symptoms had completely resolved. James’ evidence was that he does not remember this to have been the case. In the following year, James saw his GP and reported ongoing problems with urination.

Continued problems

Three years later, James saw his GP and reported problems including pain in his rectum on ejaculation, terminal dribbling, hesitancy, poor stream and constipation. Having seen a story about Mr Dixon on the news, he expressed concern at this stage that the operation might be the cause of his symptoms and was referred to surgeons to see if they agreed.

Colorectal surgeons took a history that, since around six months after the operation, James had been experiencing symptoms, and these had increased in the past year. He was having problems with bowel evacuation.

James received a letter from the Spire Hospital in 2019 to say an independent panel of surgeons had concluded that Mr Dixon had not arranged appropriate pre-operative investigations, and there were no relevant symptoms present to suggest a surgery should be offered. This meant the LVMR surgery was not clinically indicated in James’ case.

Allegations against Mr Dixon

In James’ case, allegations were made that Mr Dixon:

• Failed to consider and offer alternative management of James’ condition;
• Offered the LVMR surgery when it was not clinically indicated;
• Failed to appropriately consent James for all the relevant risks of the LVMR surgery;
• Attached the mesh to the prostate (an action which no competent surgeon could explain).

As a result, James had come to harm and was experiencing ongoing symptoms.

Mr Dixon denied the claim in full. However, the matter was eventually settled in the early stages of litigation.

Case two: more unnecessary operations

Charlotte has also settled another case for a lady who, again, was diagnosed with intussusception and was offered and underwent two surgeries by Mr Dixon (in an NHS hospital), the latter being an LVMR. She was never offered any conservative treatment before this.

Again, the allegations were that these surgeries were not clinically indicated. Had she been offered the conservative treatment, she would have accepted it, and it would have meant she lived with less intrusive bowel symptoms and would have avoided two surgeries.

There was an admission of substandard care in this case, but the hospital said the lady would have come to surgery in any event. The matter was settled out of court.

Have you been treated by Tony Dixon?

Our medical negligence lawyers are dealing with ongoing cases against Mr Dixon, including those of mesh erosion and the risk of colostomy.

If you were treated by Mr Dixon or have any concerns about your colorectal care under any surgeon after reading this blog, please contact our Medical Negligence team.

For a no-obligation, informal chat about a potential claim against Tony Dixon, call our friendly team on 0117 325 2929 or complete our online enquiry form.