Literature DB >> 28503234

Error reporting from the da Vinci surgical system in robotic surgery: A Canadian multispecialty experience at a single academic centre.

Emad Rajih1,2,3, Côme Tholomier1, Beatrice Cormier4,5, Vanessa Samouëlian4,5, Thomas Warkus4,5, Moishe Liberman6, Hugues Widmer1, Jean-Baptiste Lattouf1, Abdullah M Alenizi1, Malek Meskawi1, Roger Valdivieso1, Pierre-Alain Hueber1, Pierre I Karakewicz1, Assaad El-Hakim3, Kevin C Zorn1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The goal of the study is to evaluate and report on the third-generation da Vinci surgical (Si) system malfunctions.
METHODS: A total of 1228 robotic surgeries were performed between January 2012 and December 2015 at our academic centre. All cases were performed by using a single, dual console, four-arm, da Vinci Si robot system. The three specialties included urology, gynecology, and thoracic surgery. Studied outcomes included the robotic surgical error types, immediate consequences, and operative side effects. Error rate trend with time was also examined.
RESULTS: Overall robotic malfunctions were documented on the da Vinci Si systems event log in 4.97% (61/1228) of the cases. The most common error was related to pressure sensors in the robotic arms indicating out of limit output. This recoverable fault was noted in 2.04% (25/1228) of cases. Other errors included unrecoverable electronic communication-related in 1.06% (13/1228) of cases, failed encoder error in 0.57% (7/1228), illuminator-related in 0.33% (4/1228), faulty switch in 0.24% (3/1228), battery-related failures in 0.24% (3/1228), and software/hardware error in 0.08% (1/1228) of cases. Surgical delay was reported only in one patient. No conversion to either open or laparoscopic occurred secondary to robotic malfunctions. In 2015, the incidence of robotic error rose to 1.71% (21/1228) from 0.81% (10/1228) in 2014.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic malfunction is not infrequent in the current era of robotic surgery in various surgical subspecialties, but rarely consequential. Their seldom occurrence does not seem to affect patient safety or surgical outcome.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 28503234      PMCID: PMC5426941          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.4116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  17 in total

1.  Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system in urology.

Authors:  Cheng-Che Chen; Yen-Chuan Ou; Cheng-Kuang Yang; Kun-Yuan Chiu; Shian-Shiang Wang; Chung-Kuang Su; Hao-Chung Ho; Chen-Li Cheng; Chuan-Shu Chen; Jian-Ri Lee; Wen-Min Chen
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 3.369

2.  Advanced da Vinci Surgical System simulator for surgeon training and operation planning.

Authors:  L W Sun; F Van Meer; J Schmid; Y Bailly; A A Thakre; C K Yeung
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.547

Review 3.  Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database.

Authors:  Sero Andonian; Zeph Okeke; Deidre A Okeke; Ardeshir Rastinehad; Brian A Vanderbrink; Lee Richstone; Benjamin R Lee
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.344

4.  Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study.

Authors:  Hugh J Lavery; Rahul Thaly; David Albala; Thomas Ahlering; Arieh Shalhav; David Lee; Randy Fagin; Peter Wiklund; Prokar Dasgupta; Anthony J Costello; Ashutosh Tewari; Geoff Coughlin; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Robot-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Lung Lobectomy: Can a Robotic Approach Improve Short-Term Outcomes and Operative Safety?

Authors:  Julien Mahieu; Philippe Rinieri; Michael Bubenheim; Emile Calenda; Jean Melki; Christophe Peillon; Jean-Marc Baste
Journal:  Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  Global robotic experience and the type of surgical system impact the types of robotic malfunctions and their clinical consequences: an FDA MAUDE review.

Authors:  Steven M Lucas; Erik A Pattison; Chandru P Sundaram
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 7.  Robotic surgery in urologic oncology: gathering the evidence.

Authors:  Ted A Skolarus; Yun Zhang; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.217

8.  Failure and malfunction of da Vinci Surgical systems during various robotic surgeries: experience from six departments at a single institute.

Authors:  Won Tae Kim; Won Sik Ham; Wooju Jeong; Hyun Jung Song; Koon Ho Rha; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-08-29       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Mechanical failure rate of da Vinci robotic system.

Authors:  Lester S Borden; Paul M Kozlowski; Christopher R Porter; John M Corman
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.344

10.  Effect of Regional Hospital Competition and Hospital Financial Status on the Use of Robotic-Assisted Surgery.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Ana I Tergas; June Y Hou; William M Burke; Ling Chen; Jim C Hu; Alfred I Neugut; Cande V Ananth; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 14.766

View more
  2 in total

1.  Understanding the surgeon's behaviour during robot-assisted surgery: protocol for the qualitative Behav'Robot study.

Authors:  Clément Cormi; Guillaume Parpex; Camille Julio; Fiona Ecarnot; David Laplanche; Geoffrey Vannieuwenhuyse; Antoine Duclos; Stéphane Sanchez
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 2.  Artificial Intelligence Advances in the World of Cardiovascular Imaging.

Authors:  Bhakti Patel; Amgad N Makaryus
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-14
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.