Advertisement

Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 251–253 | Cite as

Da Vinci robot emergency undocking protocol

  • O. E. O’Sullivan
  • S. O’Sullivan
  • M. Hewitt
  • B. A. O’Reilly
Original Article

Abstract

The role of robot-assisted surgery across gynaecology is evolving with increasing numbers of procedures being undertaken with varying degrees of complexity. While the risk of conversion is low at approximately 1 %, the reasons for conversion are variable. These range from technical issues with the robot, surgical complications such as haemorrhage and anaesthetics issues such as an inability to ventilate the patient adequately. While many conversions to open or laparoscopic approach are not due to life-threatening indications, it is important that the theatre staff are aware of the indication and can perform an emergency undocking as effectively, efficiently and safely as possible when the need arises. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of the literature available outlining such protocols. For this reason, we developed an emergency undocking protocol clearly outlining the role of each theatre staff member and the need for clear concise communication.

Keywords

Emergency Undocking Protocol Patient safety 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This research has not received any funding.

Conflict of interest

O. E. O’Sullivan has received educational bursaries from Pfizer Ireland and Astellas. S. O’Sullivan has received educational bursaries from Pfizer Ireland and Astellas. M. Hewitt has acted as a mentor/proctor for intuitive surgical. B. A. O’Reilly has acted as a mentor/proctor for intuitive surgical. He has received educational grants from Pfizer Ireland and Astellas.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the patient included in this paper.

Supplementary material

11701_2016_590_MOESM1_ESM.docx (158 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 157 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Serati M et al (2014) Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 66(2):303–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cox T, Seymour N, Stefanidis D (2015) Moving the needle: simulation’s impact on patient outcomes. Surg Clin N Am 95(4):827–838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Georgiou A, Lockey DJ (2010) The performance and assessment of hospital trauma teams. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 18:66CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seagull FJ, Moses GR, Park AE (2008) Pillars of a smart, safe operating room, in advances in patient safety: new directions and alternative approaches (Vol. 3: performance and tools), Henriksen K et al., Editors. Rockville MDGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marr M et al (2012) Team play in surgical education: a simulation-based study. J Surg Educ 69(1):63–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. E. O’Sullivan
    • 1
  • S. O’Sullivan
    • 1
  • M. Hewitt
    • 1
  • B. A. O’Reilly
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Robotic SurgeryCork University Maternity Hospital, WiltonCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations