Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1503–1508 | Cite as

Instrument Failures for the da Vinci Surgical System: a Food and Drug Administration MAUDE Database Study

  • Diana C. W. Friedman
  • Thomas S. Lendvay
  • Blake Hannaford



Our goal was to analyze reported instances of the da Vinci robotic surgical system instrument failures using the FDA's MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database. From these data we identified some root causes of failures as well as trends that may assist surgeons and users of the robotic technology.


We conducted a survey of the MAUDE database and tallied robotic instrument failures that occurred between January 2009 and December 2010. We categorized failures into five main groups (cautery, shaft, wrist or tool tip, cable, and control housing) based on technical differences in instrument design and function.


A total of 565 instrument failures were documented through 528 reports. The majority of failures (285) were of the instrument’s wrist or tool tip. Cautery problems comprised 174 failures, 76 were shaft failures, 29 were cable failures, and 7 were control housing failures. Of the reports, 10 had no discernible failure mode and 49 exhibited multiple failures.


The data show that a number of robotic instrument failures occurred in a short period of time. In reality, many instrument failures may go unreported, thus a true failure rate cannot be determined from these data. However, education of hospital administrators, operating room staff, surgeons, and patients should be incorporated into discussions regarding the introduction and utilization of robotic technology. We recommend institutions incorporate standard failure reporting policies so that the community of robotic surgery companies and surgeons can improve on existing technologies for optimal patient safety and outcomes.


Robotics Laparoscopy Da Vinci surgical robot Equipment failure Surgery 


  1. 1.
    D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, Guidolin D (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47(12):2162–2168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hubens G, Coveliers H, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Vaneerdeweg W (2003) A performance study comparing manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 17(10):1595–1599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kornprat P, Werkgartner G, Cerwenka H, Bacher H, El-Shabrawi A, Rehak P, Mischinger HJ (2006) Prospective study comparing standard and robotically assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391(3):216–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ham WS, Park SY, Yu HS, Choi YD, Hong SJ, Rha KH (2009) Malfunction of da Vinci Robotic System—disassembled surgeon’s console hand piece: case report and review of the literature. Urology 73(1):209.e7–209.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lavery HJ, Thaly R, Albala D, Ahlering T, Shalhav A, Lee D, Fagin R, Wiklund P, Dasgupta P, Costello AJ, Tewari A, Coughlin G, Patel VR (2008) Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Endourol 22(9):2165–2168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ruurda JP, Draaisma WA, van Hillegersberg R, Borel Rinkes IHM, Gooszen HG, Janssen LWM, Simmermacher RKJ, Broeders IAMJ (2005) Robot-assisted endoscopic surgery: a four-year single-center experience. Dig Surg 22(5):313–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, Galocy RM, Shalhav AL, Zagaja GP (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(11):1341–1344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sorenson MD, Johnson MH, Delostrinos C, Bice JB, Grady RW, Lendvay TS (2010) Initiation of a pediatric robotic surgery program: institutional challenges and realistic outcomes. Surg Endosc 24(11):2803–2808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mues AC, Boxa GN, Abazaa R (2011) Robotic instrument insulation failure: initial report of a potential source of patient injury. J Urol 77(1):104–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim WT, Ham WS, Jeong W, Song HJ, Rha KH, Choi YD (2009) Failure and malfunction of da Vinci Surgical Systems during various robotic surgeries: experience from six departments at a single institute. Urology 74(6):1234–1237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nayyar R, Gupta NP (2010) Critical appraisal of technical problems with robotic urological surgery. Br J Urol Int 105(12):1710–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andonian S, Okeke Z, Okeke DA, Rastinehad A, Vanderbrink BA, Richstone L, Lee BR (2008) Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database. Can J Urol 15(1):3912–3916PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaushik D, High R, Clark CJ, LaGrange CA (2010) Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an international survey. J Endourol 24(4):571–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park SY, Ahn JJ, Jeong W, Ham WS, Rha KH (2010) A unique instrumental malfunction during robotic prostatectomy. Yonsei Med J 51(1):148–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park SY, Cho KS, Lee SW, Soh BH, Rha KH (2008) Intraoperative breakage of needle driver jaw during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 71(1):168.e5–168.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2011) MAUDE-Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database. Accessed 25 Jan 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana C. W. Friedman
    • 1
  • Thomas S. Lendvay
    • 2
  • Blake Hannaford
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations