Nicolas C Buchs1, François Pugin2, Francesco Volonté2, Philippe Morel2. 1. Clinic for Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Geneva, Rue Gabriel-Perret-Gentil, 4, 1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland. Electronic address: nicolas.c.buchs@hcuge.ch. 2. Clinic for Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Geneva, Rue Gabriel-Perret-Gentil, 4, 1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data concerning the reliability of robotic systems are scarce, especially for general surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and consequences of robotic malfunction in a teaching institution. METHODS: From January 2006 to September 2012, 526 consecutive robotic general surgical procedures were performed. All failures were prospectively recorded in a computerized database and reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Robotic malfunctions occurred in 18 cases (3.4%). These dysfunctions concerned the robotic instruments in 9 cases, the robotic arms in 4 cases, the surgical console in 3 cases, and the optical system in 2 cases. Two malfunctions were considered critical, and 1 led to a laparoscopic conversion (conversion rate due to malfunction, .2%). Overall, there were more dysfunctions at the beginning of the study period (2006 to 2010) than more recently (2011 to 2012) (4.2% vs 2.6%, P = .35). CONCLUSIONS: The robotic system malfunction rate was low. Most malfunctions could be resolved during surgery, allowing the procedures to be completed safely. With increased experience, the system malfunction rate seems to be reduced.
BACKGROUND: Data concerning the reliability of robotic systems are scarce, especially for general surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and consequences of robotic malfunction in a teaching institution. METHODS: From January 2006 to September 2012, 526 consecutive robotic general surgical procedures were performed. All failures were prospectively recorded in a computerized database and reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Robotic malfunctions occurred in 18 cases (3.4%). These dysfunctions concerned the robotic instruments in 9 cases, the robotic arms in 4 cases, the surgical console in 3 cases, and the optical system in 2 cases. Two malfunctions were considered critical, and 1 led to a laparoscopic conversion (conversion rate due to malfunction, .2%). Overall, there were more dysfunctions at the beginning of the study period (2006 to 2010) than more recently (2011 to 2012) (4.2% vs 2.6%, P = .35). CONCLUSIONS: The robotic system malfunction rate was low. Most malfunctions could be resolved during surgery, allowing the procedures to be completed safely. With increased experience, the system malfunction rate seems to be reduced.
Authors: Michael S Tam; Christodoulos Kaoutzanis; Andrew J Mullard; Scott E Regenbogen; Michael G Franz; Samantha Hendren; Greta Krapohl; James F Vandewarker; Richard M Lampman; Robert K Cleary Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Dong Hoon Koh; Won Sik Jang; Jae Won Park; Won Sik Ham; Woong Kyu Han; Koon Ho Rha; Young Deuk Choi Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.759