The da Vinci Surgical System

  • Simon DiMaioEmail author
  • Mike Hanuschik
  • Usha Kreaden


In this chapter we describe the evolution of the da Vinci surgical system from the very early days of Intuitive Surgical, through to 2009. In order to provide context, we begin with a short summary of the origins of telerobotic surgery itself. This involves a unique convergence of technologies and clinical needs, as well as several groups of individuals who independently recognized the role that robotics and telepresence technologies could play in medicine. The regulatory landscape has played – and continues to play – an important role in the development and use of surgical devices such as da Vinci. In this chapter, we describe some of the important aspects of device regulation and how they affect the deployment of medical devices such as ours. It should be noted that this story is told from the Intuitive Surgical perspective and is not intended to be exhaustive. Nevertheless, we hope that it provides some insight into the unique process of invention and development that has resulted in a marriage of technology and medicine that benefits hundreds of patients each day.


AESOP® clinical indication clearance history Computer Motion, Inc. da Vinci® device clearance history endoscope control manipulator Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Intuitive Surgical, Inc., laparoscopic surgery master manipulator patient-side manipulator robotic surgery history safe medical device act surgical console telemanipulation tele-robotic surgery Zeus® 


  1. 1.
    Goertz, R., Bevilacqua, F.: A force reflecting positional servo-mechanism. Nucleonics 10, 43–45 (1952)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spaner, S.J., Warnock, G.L.: A brief history of endoscopy, laparoscopy, and laparoscopic surgery. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 7, 369–373 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taylor, R.H., Funda, J., Eldridge, B., Gruben, K., LaRose, D., Gomory, S., Talamini, M., Kavoussi, L., Anderson, J.: A telerobotic assistant for laparoscopic surgery, IEEE EMBS Mag. 14, 279–291 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sackier, J.M., Wang, Y.: Robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery. From concept to development. Surg. Endosc. 8, 63–66 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Madhani, A., Niemeyer, G., Salisbury, J.: The black falcon: a teleoperated surgical instrument for minimally invasive surgery. In: Proceedings IEEE/Robotics Society of Japan International Conference on Intelligent Robotic System, vol. 2, pp. 936–944 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schenker, P., Das, H., Ohm, T.: A new robot for high dexterity microsurgery. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Vision, Virtual Reality, and Robotics in Medicine (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davies, B.L., Hibberd, R.D., Ng, W.S., Timoney, A.G., Wickham, J.E.: The development of a surgeon robot for prostatectomies. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 205, 35–38 (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosen, J., Hannaford, B., MacFarlane, M., Sinanan, M.: Force controlled and teleoperated endoscopic grasper for minimally invasive surgery – experimental performance evaluation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 46(10), 1212–1221 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Medical Device Amendments of 1976. Public Law 94–295. May 28, 1976, U. S. Congress, EdGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 – FDA. Notice, Fed Regist. 56, 14111–14113 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Device Classification. In: U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janda, M., Buch, B.: The challenges of clinical validation of emerging technologies: computer-assisted devices for surgery. J. Bone. Joint. Surg. Am. 91(Suppl 1), 17–21 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intuitive Surgical Inc.SunnyvaleUSA

Personalised recommendations