Skip to main content
Log in

Patient injuries and malfunctions associated with robotic prostatectomy: review of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotic prostatectomy is the most commonly performed robotic procedure in the United States. Increasing utilization of this procedure necessitates characterization of robot malfunctions and associated patient injuries. We performed a review of adverse events reported to a publicly available database. We searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for reported adverse events (RAE) involving the intuitive surgical system. Reports involving prostatectomy from 2014 to 2019 were extracted and analyzed for data regarding death, patient injury, and device malfunction. Of 9109 reported adverse events (RAE), 602 were extracted for robotic prostatectomy over the study period. Seven were patient deaths (1.2%), 53 (8.8%) were patient injuries (Table 1), and 542 (90.0%) were malfunctions (Table 2). Malfunctions resulted in 25 aborted cases, 21 open conversions, and 25 laparoscopic conversions (71/542, 13.1%; Fig. 1). Instrument failures comprised the majority (76.4%) of malfunctions. Seven malfunctions (1.3%) resulted in patient injury. The most common device-related injury involved the monopolar curved scissors. No reported deaths were related to robot malfunction. Instrument failures comprise majority of the malfunctions of the Da Vinci robot during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. When malfunctions do occur they are usually recoverable and rarely lead to patient injury.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gupta NP (2014) Current concepts in robotic radical prostatectomy. Indian J Urol 30:398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ploussard G (2018) Robotic surgery in urology: facts and reality. What are the real advantages of robotic approaches for prostate cancer patients? Curr Opin Urol 28:153–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gurtcheff SE (2008) Introduction to the MAUDE database. Clin Obstet Gynecol 51:120–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J et al (2015) SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc 29:2873–2884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA et al (2007) Da Vinci robot error and failure rates: single institution experience on a single three-arm robot unit of more than 700 consecutive robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 21:1341–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Borden LS, Kozlowski PM, Porter CR et al (2007) Mechanical failure rate of da Vinci robotic system. Can J Urol 14:3499–3501

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lavery HJ, Thaly R, Albala D et al (2008) Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Endourol 22:2165–2168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen C-C, Ou Y-C, Yang C-K et al (2012) Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system in urology. Int J Urol 19:736–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaushik D, High R, Clark CJ et al (2010) Malfunction of the Da Vinci robotic system during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an international survey. J Endourol 24:571–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Andonian S, Okeke Z, Okeke DA et al (2008) Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database. Can J Urol 15:3912–3916

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Alemzadeh H, Raman J, Leveson N et al (2016) Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS ONE 11:e0151470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nayyar R, Gupta NP (2010) Critical appraisal of technical problems with robotic urological surgery. BJU Int 105:1710–1713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Souders C, Nik-Ahd F, Zhao H et al (2019) Robotic sacrocolpopexy: adverse events reported to the FDA over the last decade. Int Urogynecol J 30:1919–1923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Friedman DCW, Lendvay TS, Hannaford B (2013) Instrument failures for the da vinci surgical system: a food and drug administration MAUDE database study. Surg Endosc 27:1503–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rajih E, Tholomier C, Cormier B et al (2017) Error reporting from the da Vinci surgical system in robotic surgery: a Canadian multispecialty experience at a single academic centre. Can Urol Assoc J 11:E197–E202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mues AC, Box GN, Abaza R (2011) Robotic instrument insulation failure: initial report of a potential source of patient injury. Urology 77:104–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooper MA, Ibrahim A, Lyu H et al (2015) Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. J Healthc Qual 37:133–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Anon: Surgical I (2018) Annual Report. https://isrg.gcs-web.com/sec-filings?field_nir_sec_form_group_target_id%5B%5D=471&field_nir_sec_date_filed_value=#views-exposed-form-widget-sec-filings-table. Accessed 15 July 2019

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bilal Chughtai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors (Hudson Pierce, Brittany Roberts, Douglas Scherr, Christopher Barbieri, Jennifer Anger, Timothy McClure, Bilal Chughtai) declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pierce, H., Roberts, B., Scherr, D. et al. Patient injuries and malfunctions associated with robotic prostatectomy: review of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database. J Robotic Surg 15, 179–185 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01088-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01088-1

Keywords

Navigation