Advertisement

Medicolegal Issues in Robotic Surgery

  • Elizabeth M. Hechenbleikner
  • Brian P. Jacob
Chapter

Abstract

The da Vinci® Surgical System is designed to improve minimally invasive surgeries by providing surgeons with enhanced precision and visualization and by enabling procedures that were otherwise considered too challenging without a robotic instrument. When expertly performed, these robotic minimally invasive procedures can help provide patients optimized recoveries when compared to traditional open surgeries. Robotic surgery, specifically with devices like the da Vinci® Surgical System, has seen rapid expansion and growth since the early 2000s. However, as the frequency of robotic procedures grows, so do complaints of system malfunctions and reports of patient injuries that may lead to lawsuits against stakeholders which include the device manufacturer, the hospital or institutions and their staff, as well as the surgeons and their associates. Each of these stakeholders involved in robotic surgery is responsible to uphold the highest level of training and care available to help a patient achieve a good outcome. This chapter aims to provide an overview of these stakeholder responsibilities, as well as to attempt to differentiate what each stakeholder is and is not responsible for when it comes to a legal complaint.

Keywords

Robotic surgery Adverse events MAUDE database Device malfunctions Operator errors Product liability Medical malpractice 

References

  1. 1.
    Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg. 2004;239(1):14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Satava RM. Surgical robotics: the early chronicles: a personal historical perspective. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002;12(1):6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Warren H, Dasgupta P. The future of robotics. Investig Clin Urol. 2017;58:297–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Intuitive Surgical. Clinical evidence: level of evidence of peer-reviewed publications [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Apr 28]; Available from: https://www.davincisurgerycommunity.com/evidence.
  5. 5.
    Herron DM, Marohn M, The SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. A consensus document on robotic surgery [Internet]. 2007; Available from: https://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/consensus-document-robotic-surgery/.
  6. 6.
    Tsuda S, Oleynikov D, Gould J, et al. SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2873–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper MA, Ibrahim A, Lyu H, Makary MA. Underreporting of robotic surgery complications. J Healthc Qual. 2015;37(2):133–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reportlinker. Global surgical robotics market to reach $12.6 billion 2025 [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Apr 28]; Available from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-surgical-robotics-market-to-reach-126-billion-2025-300587080.html.
  9. 9.
    Intuitive Surgical. Intuitive Surgical announces preliminary fourth quarter and full year 2017 results [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Apr 24]; Available from: http://investor.intuitivesurgical.com/mobile.view?c=122359&v=203&d=1&id=2325993.
  10. 10.
    Greenberg H. Robotic surgery: growing sales, but growing concerns [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Apr 27]; Available from: https://www.cnbc.com/id/100564517.
  11. 11.
    Alemzadeh H, Raman J, Leveson N, Kalbarczyk Z, Iyer RK. Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of fda data. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0151470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hauser R, Katsiyiannis W, Gornick C, Almquist A, Kallinen L. Deaths and cardiovascular injuries due to device-assisted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker lead extraction. Europace. 2010;12(3):395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Justia. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (Majority and Dissent) [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 May 27]; Available from: https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2017/92210-1.html.
  14. 14.
    Intuitive Surgical. Annual report 2017 [Internet]. 2018; Available from: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=122359&p=irol-sec.
  15. 15.
    Mavroforou A, Michalodimitrakis E, Hatzitheofilou C, Giannoukas A. Legal and ethical issues in robotic surgery. Int Angiol. 2010;29(1):75–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McLean T. The complexity of litigation associated with robotic surgery and cybersurgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2007;3:23–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Intuitive Surgical. Annual report 2004 [Internet]. 2005; Available from: http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/i/NASDAQ_ISRG_2004.pdf.
  18. 18.
    FindLaw. Da Vinci robot surgery lawsuits [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Apr 29]; Available from: https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/da-vinci-robot-surgery-lawsuits.html.
  19. 19.
    Lee YL, Kilic GS, Phelps JY. Medicolegal review of liability risks for gynecologists stemming from lack of training in robot-assisted surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(4):512–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rozbruch L. Litigation and robotic surgery: product liability or medical malpractice? [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Apr 28]; Available from: https://www.pulj.org/the-roundtable/litigation-robotic-surgery-product-liability-or-medical-malpractice.
  21. 21.
    Espada M, Munoz R, Noble BN, Magrina JF. Insulation failure in robotic and laparoscopic instrumentation: a prospective evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(2):e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Friedman D, Lendvay T, Hannaford B. Instrument failures for the da Vinci surgical system: a Food and Drug Administration MAUDE database study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(5):1503–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    U.S. Food & Drug Administration. MAUDE – manufacturer and user facility device experience [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 May 10]; Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/search.cfm#fn1.
  24. 24.
    U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. 7/16/13 [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 May 10]; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2013/ucm363260.htm.
  25. 25.
    Greenberg H. FDA: Intuitive Surgical failed to report warning [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Apr 30]; Available from: https://www.cnbc.com/id/100843549.
  26. 26.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Open payments search tool [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 May 27]; Available from: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov.
  27. 27.
    Jin L, Ibrahim A, Newman N, Makarov D, Pronovost P, Makary M. Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Healthc Qual. 2011;33(6):48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schiavone MB, Kuo EC, Naumann RW, et al. The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(174):e1–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Saito Y, Yasuhara H, Murakoshi S, Komatsu T, Fukatsu K, Uetera Y. Challenging residual contamination of instruments for robotic surgery in Japan. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017;38(2):143–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth M. Hechenbleikner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brian P. Jacob
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryMount Sinai HospitalNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of General Surgery, Garlock Division of SurgeryMount Sinai HospitalNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Laparoscopic Surgical Center of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations