Literature DB >> 21777841

Medicolegal review of liability risks for gynecologists stemming from lack of training in robot-assisted surgery.

Yu L Lee1, Gokhan S Kilic, John Y Phelps.   

Abstract

The advances in robot-assisted surgery in gynecology evolved after most practicing gynecologists had already completed residency training. Postgraduate training in new technology for gynecologists in practice is limited. Therefore, gynecologists with insufficient training who perform robot-assisted surgery may potentially be at risk for liability. In addition to the traditional medical negligence claims, plaintiff attorneys are seeking causes of actions for lack of informed consent and negligent credentialing. Thus, it is essential that gynecologists be aware of these potential liability claims that arise in a robot-assisted malpractice suit. This commentary provides an overview of the current medicolegal liability risks originating from lack of training in robotic surgery and seeks to raise awareness of the implications involved in these claims. A better understanding of the doctrine of informed consent and seeking assistance of proctors or experienced co-surgeons early in robotics training are likely to reduce the liability risks for gynecologic surgeons.
Copyright © 2011 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21777841     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.04.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  9 in total

1.  Survey of robotic surgery credentialing requirements for physicians completing OB/GYN residency.

Authors:  Britt K Erickson; Jonathan L Gleason; Warner K Huh; Holly E Richter
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 4.137

Review 2.  Robotic surgery and malpractice.

Authors:  Fatih Hitami Usluoğulları; Sıtkı Tıplamaz; Nesime Yaycı
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-12-01

3.  Single-site robotic-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children and adolescents: a report of 20 cases.

Authors:  Peter Mattei
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Effect of residents' previous laparoscopic surgery experience on initial robotic suturing experience.

Authors:  Gokhan Sami Kilic; Teresa M Walsh; Mostafa Borahay; Burak Zeybek; Michael Wen; Daniel Breitkopf
Journal:  ISRN Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-09-02

5.  Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  Robert Debernardo; David Starks; Nichole Barker; Amy Armstrong; Charles A Kunos
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2011-11-16

Review 6.  A review of robotic surgical training: establishing a curriculum and credentialing process in ophthalmology.

Authors:  Bonnie He; Marc D de Smet; Mohit Sodhi; Mahyar Etminan; David Maberley
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 4.456

7.  The impact of a wireless audio system on communication in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery: A prospective controlled trial.

Authors:  Ziv Tsafrir; Kirsten Janosek-Albright; Joelle Aoun; Mireya Diaz-Insua; Abd-El-Rahman Abd-El-Barr; Lauren Schiff; Shobhana Talukdar; Mani Menon; Adnan Munkarah; Evan Theoharis; David Eisenstein
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Recommendations for a standardised educational program in robot assisted gynaecological surgery: Consensus from the Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS).

Authors:  P Rusch; T Ind; R Kimmig; A Maggioni; J Ponce; V Zanagnolo; P J Coronado; J Verguts; E Lambaudie; H Falconer; J W Collins; Rhm Verheijen
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2019-03

9.  Quality of Communication in Robotic Surgery and Surgical Outcomes.

Authors:  Lauren Schiff; Ziv Tsafrir; Joelle Aoun; Andrew Taylor; Evan Theoharis; David Eisenstein
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.