With advances in technology, new machines and devices have been developed, bringing great advances in modern medicine; the use of robotic technology should not only be based on its advantages but also on its shortcomings, and clinicians should be aware of the risks of untoward or unexpected events. Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system is one of the shortcomings that might result in variable outcomes, depending on the severity. The potential for malfunctions leading to complications, aborted procedures, or open conversions is a concern due to the reliance on this system.
The intention of this text is to give a consolidated assessment of the safety and efficacy of robotic surgical systems. We have practiced a review of current medical literature indexed in PubMed to date (US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health).
The most common failures are divided into groups: system errors and video/image problems, falling broken pieces or burned in the patient’s body, instrument’s electrical arcs, sparks or burning, and unintended operation of instruments. During the development of the chapter, we will try to give some clues to avoid or overcome the previous mentioned adverse events.
Robot-assisted surgery has brought new potential technical problems for the surgeon, but most of these problems can be corrected or temporarily overwhelmed to complete the operation. Robotic surgery provides a safe way of minimally invasive treatment.
KeywordsDevice malfunctions Robotic systems Failure Technical da Vinci Adverse effects
- 2.The da Vinci Surgical System, Intuitive Surgical Inc.; http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/davinci_surgical_system/.
- 3.MAUDE: Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/search.CFM.
- 4.Adverse Event Reporting of Medical Devices, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OEI-01-08-00110), Oct 2009; https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-08-00110.
- 9.Lucas SM, Pattison EA, Sundaram CP. Global robotic experience and the type of surgical system impact the types of robotic malfunctions and their clinical consequences: an FDA MAUDE review. BJU Int. 2012;109(8):1222–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X. 2011.10692.x. PMID: 22044556.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Fuller A, Vilos George A, Pautler Stephen E. Electrosurgical injuries during robot assisted surgery: insights from the FDA MAUDE database. SPIE BiOS. 2012;8207:820714.Google Scholar
- 19.Clare R, et al. Relative effectiveness of robot?Assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison metaanalysis. BJU Int. 2013;112(6):798–812. doi: 10.1111/bju.12247. PMID: 23890416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Alemzadeh H, et al. A software framework for simulation of safety hazards in robotic surgical systems. SIGBED Rev. (Special Issue on Medical Cyber Physical Systems Workshop). 2015;12(4):1–6.Google Scholar
- 22.Alemzadeh H, et al. Simulation-based training for safety incidents: lessons from analysis of adverse events in robotic surgical systems. American College of Surgeons’ 8th Annual Meeting of the Consortium of ACS-accredited Education Institutes, Mar 2015.Google Scholar
- 23.Taylor RH, et al. Medical robotics and computer-integrated surgery. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer handbook of robotics. Springer; 2008. p. 1199–222.Google Scholar