Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 21, 2026.

Adverse Events in Robotic Surgery: A Retrospective Study of 14 Years of FDA Data

Homa Alemzadeh, Jaishankar Raman, Nancy Leveson and 2 more

PLOS ONE · 2016 · CC BY

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151470

Abstract

Background. Use of robotic systems for minimally invasive surgery has rapidly increased during the last decade. Understanding the causes of adverse events and their impact on patients in robot-assisted surgery will help improve systems and operational practices to avoid incidents in the future.

Methods. By developing an automated natural language processing tool, we performed a comprehensive analysis of the adverse events reported to the publicly available MAUDE database (maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) from 2000 to 2013. We determined the number of events reported per procedure and per surgical specialty, the most common types of device malfunctions and their impact on patients, and the potential causes for catastrophic events such as patient injuries and deaths.

Results. During the study period, 144 deaths (1.4% of the 10,624 reports), 1,391 patient injuries (13.1%), and 8,061 device malfunctions (75.9%) were reported. The numbers of injury and death events per procedure have stayed relatively constant (mean = 83.4, 95% confidence interval (CI), 74.2–92.7 per 100,000 procedures) over the years. Surgical specialties for which robots are extensively used, such as gynecology and urology, had lower numbers of injuries, deaths, and conversions per procedure than more complex surgeries, such as cardiothoracic and head and neck (106.3 vs. 232.9 per 100,000 procedures, Risk Ratio = 2.2, 95% CI, 1.9–2.6). Device and instrument malfunctions, such as falling of burnt/broken pieces of instruments into the patient (14.7%), electrical arcing of instruments (10.5%), unintended operation of instruments (8.6%), system errors (5%), and video/imaging problems (2.6%), constituted a major part of the reports. Device malfunctions impacted patients in terms of injuries or procedure interruptions. In 1,104 (10.4%) of all the events, the procedure was interrupted to restart the system (3.1%), to convert the procedure to non-robotic techniques (7.3%), or to reschedule it (2.5%).

Conclusions. Despite widespread adoption of robotic systems for minimally invasive surgery in the U.S., a non-negligible number of technical difficulties and complications are still being experienced during procedures. Adoption of advanced techniques in design and operation of robotic surgical systems and enhanced mechanisms for adverse event reporting may reduce these preventable incidents in the future.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

Read at PubMed Central

References 58

  1. 1.

    "Annual Report 2013," Intuitive Surgical; http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjIzOTk3fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    "The da Vinci Surgical System," Intuitive Surgical Inc.; http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/davinci_surgical_system/.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    "RIO® Robotic Arm Interactive System," MAKO Surgical Corp., http://www.makosurgical.com/physicians/products/rio.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    Kazanzidesf, Peter, et al. "An open-source research kit for the da Vinci® Surgical System." Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2014.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    Lum Mitchell JH, et al "The RAVEN: Design and validation of a telesurgery system." The International Journal of Robotics Research 289 (2009 ): 1183–1197.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    Hannaford Blake, et al "Raven-II: an open platform for surgical robotics research." IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 604 (2013 ): 954–959.

    Not in our library10.1109/tbme.2012.2228858

  7. 7.

    "MAUDE: Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience," U.S. Food and Drug Administration, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/search.CFM.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    Eichel L, Ahlering TE, Clayman RV. "Robotics in Urologic Surgery: Risks and Benefits." AUA Update Series 2005; 24(lesson 13): 106–111.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    Kozlowski PM, Porter CR, Corman JM. "Mechanical failure rate of DaVinci robotic system: Implications for pre-op patient counseling." Journal of Urology 1754 (2006 ):372–373.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    Borden L. S. Jr, Kozlowski P. M., Porter C. R., and Corman J. M.. "Mechanical failure rate of da Vinci robotic system." The Canadian Journal of Urology 142 (2007 ): 3499–3501.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    Zorn Kevin C., et al "Da Vinci robot error and failure rates: single institution experience on a single three-arm robot unit of more than 700 consecutive robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies." Journal of Endourology 2111 (2007 ): 1341–1344.

    Not in our library10.1089/end.2006.0455

  12. 12.

    Fischer Boris, Engel Nadja, Fehr Jean-Luc, and John Hubert. "Complications of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy." World journal of urology 266 (2008 ): 595–602.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00345-008-0287-7

  13. 13.

    Lavery Hugh J., et al "Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study." Journal of Endourology 229 (2008 ): 2165–2168.

    Not in our library10.1089/end.2007.0407

  14. 14.

    Ham Won Sik, et al "Malfunction of da Vinci robotic system-disassembled surgeon's console hand piece: Case report and review of the literature." Urology 731 (2009 ): 209–e7.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.urology.2008.02.012

  15. 15.

    Kim Won Tae, et al "Failure and malfunction of da Vinci Surgical systems during various robotic surgeries: experience from six departments at a single institute." Urology 746 (2009 ): 1234–1237.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.071

  16. 16.

    Kaushik Dharam, et al "Malfunction of the Da Vinci robotic system during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an international survey." Journal of Endourology 244 (2010 ): 571–575.

    Not in our library10.1089/end.2009.0489

  17. 17.

    Finan Michael A., and Rocconi Rodney P.. "Overcoming technical challenges with robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology." Surgical Endoscopy 246 (2010 ): 1256–1260.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00464-009-0756-0

  18. 18.

    Mues Adam C., Box Geoffrey N., and Abaza Ronney. "Robotic instrument insulation failure: initial report of a potential source of patient injury." Urology 771 (2011 ): 104–107.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.093

  19. 19.

    Agcaoglu Orhan, et al "Malfunction and failure of robotic systems during general surgical procedures." Surgical Endoscopy 2612 (2012 ): 3580–3583.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00464-012-2370-9

  20. 20.

    Chen Cheng-Che, et al "Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system in urology." International Journal of Urology 198 (2012 ): 736–740.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03010.x

  21. 21.

    Buchs Nicolas C., et al "Reliability of robotic system during general surgical procedures in a university hospital." The American Journal of Surgery 2071 (2014 ): 84–88.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.06.007

  22. 22.

    "Adverse Event Reporting of Medical Devices," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OEI-01-08-00110), October 2009; https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-08-00110.pdf.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    Hauser Robert G., et al "Deaths and cardiovascular injuries due to device-assisted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker lead extraction." Europace 123 (2010 ):395–401.

    Not in our library10.1093/europace/eup375

  24. 24.

    Cooper Michol A., et al "Underreporting of Robotic Surgery Complications." Journal of Healthcare Quality (2013 ).

    Not in our library10.1111/jhq.12036

  25. 25.

    Murphy D., et al "Complications in robotic urological surgery." Minerva urologica e nefrologica = The Italian journal of urology and nephrology 592 (2007 ): 191–198.

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    Fuller Andrew, Vilos George A., and Pautler Stephen E.. "Electrosurgical Injuries during Robot Assisted Surgery: Insights from the FDA MAUDE Database." in SPIE BiOS 8207 (2012 ): 820714.

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    Friedman Diana CW, Lendvay Thomas S., and Hannaford Blake. "Instrument Failures for the da Vinci Surgical System: a Food and Drug Administration MAUDE Database Study." Surgical endoscopy 275 (2013 ): 1503–1508.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00464-012-2659-8

  28. 28.

    Andonian Sero, et al "Device Failures Associated with Patient Injuries during Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Comprehensive Review of FDA MAUDE Database." Canadian Journal of Urology 15, no. 1 (2008 ): 3912.

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    Lucas Steven M., Pattison Erik A., and Sundaram Chandru P.. "Global Robotic Experience and the Type of Surgical System Impact the Types of Robotic Malfunctions and their Clinical Consequences: An FDA MAUDE Review." BJU International 1098 (2012 ): 1222–1227.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1464-410x.2011.10692.x

  30. 30.

    Gupta Priyanka, et al "855 adverse events associated with the davinci surgical system as reported in the fda maude database." The Journal of Urology 1894 (2013 ): e351.

    Not in our library

  31. 31.

    Manoucheri Elmira, et al "MAUDE-Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery." Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 214 (2014 ): 592–595.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.122

  32. 32.

    "da Vinci® Procedures," da Vinci Surgery, http://www.davincisurgery.com/da-vinci-surgery/da-vinci-procedures/.

    Not in our library

  33. 33.

    "EndoWrist® Instrument & Accessory Catalog," Intuitive Surgical, Inc., January 2013; http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/products/871145_Instrument_Accessory_%20Catalog.pdf.

    Not in our library

  34. 34.

    Manning Christopher D. Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Edited by Hinrich Schütze. Cambridge: MIT press, 1999.

    Not in our library

  35. 35.

    Investor Presentation, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Q1 2013, http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTcwOTQ5fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    "Intuitive Surgical Comments on Medical Device Reporting Practices," Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 3 13, 2013; http://investor.intuitivesurgical.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=122359&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1796011.

    Not in our library

  37. 37.

    "Computer-Assisted (Robotic) Surgical Systems: What are Computer-Assisted (Robotic) Surgical Systems?" U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 11 2013; http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/SurgeryandLifeSupport/ComputerAssistedRoboticSurgicalSystems/default.htm.

    Not in our library

  38. 38.

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Warning Letters, July 16, 2013; http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2013/ucm363260.htm.

    Not in our library

  39. 39.

    "Has the Halo Been Broken on Intuitive Surgical?" Citron Research, December 19, 2012; http://www.citronresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/isrg-final1.pdf.

    Not in our library

  40. 40.

    "Intuitive Surgical: Angel with Broken Wings, or the Devil in Disguise?" Citron Research, January 17, 2013; http://www.citronresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Intuitive-Surgical-part-two-final.pdf.

    Not in our library

  41. 41.

    "FDA Investigates Robotic Surgery System after Adverse Event Spike," Medscape Today; http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/803339.

    Not in our library

  42. 42.

    Robertson Clare, et al "Relative effectiveness of robot?assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta?analysis." BJU International 1126 (2013 ): 798–812.

    Not in our library10.1111/bju.12247

  43. 43.

    Breitenstein Stefan, et al "Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study." Annals of Surgery 2476 (2008 ): 987–93.

    Not in our library10.1097/sla.0b013e318172501f

  44. 44.

    Marusch Frank, et al "Importance of conversion for results obtained with laparoscopic colorectal surgery." Diseases of the colon & rectum 442 (2001 ): 207–214.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf02234294

  45. 45.

    Gonzalez Rodrigo, et al "Consequences of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery." Diseases of the colon & rectum 492 (2006 ): 197–204.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10350-005-0258-7

  46. 46.

    Simorov Anton, et al "Review of surgical robotics user interface: what is the best way to control robotic surgery?." Surgical Endosopy 268 (2012 ): 2117–2125.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00464-012-2182-y

  47. 47.

    Seco Michael, et al "Systematic review of robotic minimally invasive mitral valve surgery". Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery 26 (2013 ): 704–716.

    Not in our library10.3978/j.issn.2225-319x.2013.10.18

  48. 48.

    Holzhey David M., et al "Learning minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a cumulative sum sequential probability analysis of 3895 operations from a single high-volume center." Circulation 1285 (2013 ):483–491.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.112.001402

  49. 49.

    Lee Jandee, et al "The learning curve for robotic thyroidectomy: a multicenter study." Annals of Surgical Oncology 181 (2011 ): 226–232.

    Not in our library10.1245/s10434-010-1220-z

  50. 50.

    Barbash Gabriel I., and Glied Sherry A.. "New technology and health care costs-the case of robot-assisted surgery." New England Journal of Medicine 3638 (2010 ): 701–704.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmp1006602

  51. 51.

    Damiano Ralph J. "Robotics in cardiac surgery: the emperor's new clothes." The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 1343 (2007 ): 559–561.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.08.026

  52. 52.

    Robicsek Francis. "Robotic cardiac surgery: Time told!." The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 1352 (2008 ): 243–246.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.05.072

  53. 53.

    Modi Paul, Hassan Ansar, and Chitwood Walter Randolph. "Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis." European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 345 (2008 ): 943–952.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.07.057

  54. 54.

    Dhawan Richa, et al "Multivessel beating heart robotic myocardial revascularization increases morbidity and mortality." The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 1435 (2012 ): 1056–1061.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.06.023

  55. 55.

    Alemzadeh Homa, et al "A Software Framework for Simulation of Safety Hazards in Robotic Surgical Systems," SIGBED Review (Special Issue on Medical Cyber Physical Systems Workshop) 124 (2015 ).

    Not in our library

  56. 56.

    Alemzadeh, Homa, et al. "Simulation-based Training for Safety Incidents: Lessons from Analysis of Adverse Events in Robotic Surgical Systems," American College of Surgeons' 8th Annual Meeting of the Consortium of ACS-accredited Education Institutes, March 2015.

    Not in our library

  57. 57.

    Taylor Russell H., et al "Medical robotics and computer-integrated surgery" Springer handbook of robotics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008 1199–1222.

    Not in our library

  58. 58.

    Lin Henry C., Shafran Izhak, Yuh David, and Hager Gregory D.. "Towards automatic skill evaluation: Detection and segmentation of robot-assisted surgical motions." Computer Aided Surgery 115 (2006 ): 220–230.

    Not in our library10.3109/10929080600989189

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.