OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to detect the incidence, prevalence, and location of insulation failures (IFs) in laparoscopic and robotic instruments. STUDY DESIGN: In phase A, a total of 78 robotic and 298 laparoscopic instruments were tested at 20 W and 2.64 kV at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. In phase B, 60 robotic and 308 laparoscopic instruments were tested at 20 W/1 kV and 20 W/4.2 kV, respectively. RESULTS: In phase A, the robotic group showed a higher prevalence (25/78; 32%) and incidence of IFs after 10 uses (35/44 instruments; 80%) when compared with laparoscopy (prevalence, 39/298 [13%]; incidence, 68/189 [36%]; P<.05). In phase B, IFs were detected in 81.7% of the robotic instruments and in 19.5% of the laparoscopic instruments (P<.005). CONCLUSION: There is a high incidence and prevalence of IF in endoscopic instrumentation that is more common in the robotic group.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to detect the incidence, prevalence, and location of insulation failures (IFs) in laparoscopic and robotic instruments. STUDY DESIGN: In phase A, a total of 78 robotic and 298 laparoscopic instruments were tested at 20 W and 2.64 kV at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. In phase B, 60 robotic and 308 laparoscopic instruments were tested at 20 W/1 kV and 20 W/4.2 kV, respectively. RESULTS: In phase A, the robotic group showed a higher prevalence (25/78; 32%) and incidence of IFs after 10 uses (35/44 instruments; 80%) when compared with laparoscopy (prevalence, 39/298 [13%]; incidence, 68/189 [36%]; P<.05). In phase B, IFs were detected in 81.7% of the robotic instruments and in 19.5% of the laparoscopic instruments (P<.005). CONCLUSION: There is a high incidence and prevalence of IF in endoscopic instrumentation that is more common in the robotic group.