Rishi Nayyar1, Narmada P Gupta. 1. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To record the technical problems and complications associated with the use of da Vinci S robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and to review previous reports. METHODS: We analysed our records for all machine- or instrument-related errors during the course of 340 consecutive robot-assisted urological operations at our centre from July 2006 to March 2009, using one robotic machine. The cause of the error (machine or human), troubleshooting methods and consequences of the errors were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall device failure rate was 10.9% (37/340). The most frequent technical problems were related to robotic instruments (23/37). Other failures included colour/hue changes in the console image, intermittent double vision, fused illuminator bulb and problems with the master tool-manipulator device (hand-piece unit), patient cart circuitry, patient-side manipulator arm, closed-circuit camera unit or camera cable. Of 37 problems, 28 (76%) were surmountable during the course of surgery. The overall conversions to standard open/laparoscopic procedure attributable to mechanical failures of the robot were 0.6% (2/340). There were no complications or direct harm to the patient in any case. Most faults could be corrected or bypassed with some addition to operating room time. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an association of various types of new technical problems with robotic surgery, it provides a safe mode of minimally invasive surgery with very low conversion rates attributable to it, and no direct patient injury.
OBJECTIVE: To record the technical problems and complications associated with the use of da Vinci S robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and to review previous reports. METHODS: We analysed our records for all machine- or instrument-related errors during the course of 340 consecutive robot-assisted urological operations at our centre from July 2006 to March 2009, using one robotic machine. The cause of the error (machine or human), troubleshooting methods and consequences of the errors were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall device failure rate was 10.9% (37/340). The most frequent technical problems were related to robotic instruments (23/37). Other failures included colour/hue changes in the console image, intermittent double vision, fused illuminator bulb and problems with the master tool-manipulator device (hand-piece unit), patient cart circuitry, patient-side manipulator arm, closed-circuit camera unit or camera cable. Of 37 problems, 28 (76%) were surmountable during the course of surgery. The overall conversions to standard open/laparoscopic procedure attributable to mechanical failures of the robot were 0.6% (2/340). There were no complications or direct harm to the patient in any case. Most faults could be corrected or bypassed with some addition to operating room time. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an association of various types of new technical problems with robotic surgery, it provides a safe mode of minimally invasive surgery with very low conversion rates attributable to it, and no direct patient injury.
Authors: Amir Szold; Roberto Bergamaschi; Ivo Broeders; Jenny Dankelman; Antonello Forgione; Thomas Langø; Andreas Melzer; Yoav Mintz; Salvador Morales-Conde; Michael Rhodes; Richard Satava; Chung-Ngai Tang; Ramon Vilallonga Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Emad Rajih; Côme Tholomier; Beatrice Cormier; Vanessa Samouëlian; Thomas Warkus; Moishe Liberman; Hugues Widmer; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Abdullah M Alenizi; Malek Meskawi; Roger Valdivieso; Pierre-Alain Hueber; Pierre I Karakewicz; Assaad El-Hakim; Kevin C Zorn Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Ahmad Abiri; Anna Tao; Meg LaRocca; Xingmin Guan; Syed J Askari; James W Bisley; Erik P Dutson; Warren S Grundfest Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Colby P Souders; Ken Catchpole; Alex Hannemann; Ronit Lyon; Karyn S Eilber; Catherine Bresee; Tara Cohen; Matthias Weigl; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Monica Jain; Brian T Fry; Luke W Hess; Jennifer T Anger; Bruce L Gewertz; Ken Catchpole Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Ken Catchpole; Colby Perkins; Catherine Bresee; M Jonathon Solnik; Benjamin Sherman; John Fritch; Bruno Gross; Samantha Jagannathan; Niv Hakami-Majd; Raymund Avenido; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 4.584