Malfunction and failure of robotic systems during general surgical procedures

The new surgical robot Hugo™ RAS for total hysterectomy: a pilot study

Background

With the rising popularity of robotic surgery, Hugo™ RAS is one of the newest surgical robotic platforms. Investigating the reliability of this tool is the first step toward validating its use in clinical practice; and presently there arelimited data available regarding this. The literature is constantly enriched with initial experiences, however no study has demonstrated the safety of this platform yet.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate its reliability during total hysterectomy.

Materials and Methods

A series of 20 consecutive patients scheduled for minimally invasive total hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy for benign disease or prophylactic surgery were selected to undergo surgery with Hugo™ RAS. Data regarding any malfunction or breakdown of the robotic system as well as intra- and post-operative complications were prospectively recorded.

Results

Fifteen of the twenty patients (75.0%) underwent surgery for benign uterine diseases, and five (25.0%) underwent prophylactic surgery. Among the entire series, an instrument fault occurred in one case (5.0%). The problem was solved in 4.8 minutes and without complications for the patient. The median total operative time was 127 min (range, 98-255 min). The median estimated blood loss was 50 mL (range:30-125 mL). No intraoperative complications were observed. One patient (5.0%) developed Clavien-Dindo grade 2 post-operative complication.

Conclusions

In this pilot study, Hugo™ RAS showed high reliability, similar to other robotic devices.

What is new?

Present findings suggest that Hugo™ RAS is a viable option for major surgical procedures and deserves further investigation in clinical practice.

Bioethical implications of robotic surgery in urology: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Robotic technologies are being increasingly implemented in healthcare, including urology, holding promises for improving medicine worldwide. However, these new approaches raise ethical concerns for professionals, patients, researchers and institutions that need to be addressed. The aim of this review is to investigate the existing literature related to bioethical issues associated with robotic surgery in urology, in order to identify current challenges and make preliminary suggestions to ensure an ethical implementation of these technologies.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the pertaining literature through a systematic search of two databases (PubMed and Web of Science) in August 2020.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 76 articles for full-text evaluation and 48 articles were included in the narrative review. Several bioethical issues were identified and can be categorized into five main subjects: 1) robotic surgery accessibility; 2) safety; 3) gender gap; 4) costs and 5) learning curve. 1) Robotic surgery is expensive, and in some health systems may lead to inequality in healthcare access. In more affluent countries the national distribution of several robotic platforms may influence the centralization of robotic surgery, therefore potentially affecting oncological and functional outcomes in low-volume centers. 2) There is a considerable gap between surgical skills and patients' perception of competence, leading to ethical consequences on modern healthcare. Published incidence of adverse events during robotic surgery in large series is between 2% and 15%, which does not significantly differ amongst open or laparoscopic approaches. 3) No data about gap differences in accessibility to robotic platforms were retrieved from our search. 4) Robotic platforms are expensive but a key reason why hospitals are willing to absorb the high upfront costs is patient demand. It is possible to achieve cost-equivalence between open and robotic prostatectomy if the volume of centers is higher than 10 cases per week. 5) A validated, structured curriculum and accreditation has been created for robotic surgery. This allows acquisition and development of basic and complex robotic skills focusing on patient safety and short learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Tech-medicine is rapidly moving forward. Robotic approach to urology seems to be accessible in more affluent countries, safe, economically sustainable, and easy to learn with an appropriate learning curve for both sex. It is mandatory to keep maintaining a critical rational approach with constant control of the available evidence regarding efficacy, efficiency and safety.

Framed and non-framed robotics in neurosurgery: A 10-year single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Safety, efficacy and efficiency of neurosurgical robots are defined by their design (i.e., framed and non-framed) and procedural workflow (PW) (from image to surgery). The present study describes the quality indicators of three different robots in brain and spine surgery.

METHODS

This single-centre study enrolled 252 patients over a 10-year period. Safety (complication rate) and efficacy (diagnostic yield, pedicle screw placement) were determined. Predictors of workflow efficiency (e.g., skin-to-skin) were evaluated and compared to conventional techniques (neuronavigation, stereotaxy).

RESULTS

All robots showed excellent reliability (97.5%-100%) with low complication rates (4.5%-5.3%) and high efficacy (94.7%-97.7%). Robotics demonstrated a better time-efficiency than neuronavigation. However, there was no shortening of surgery time compared to conventional stereotaxy. Time-efficiency differed significantly between framed and non-framed workflows.

CONCLUSION

While all neurosurgical robots were reliable, safe and efficacious, there were significant differences in time-efficiency. PWs should be improved to increase the acceptance of robotics in neurosurgery.

Bioethical approach to robot-assisted surgery

Challenges the current model of consent

Malfunctions of robotic system in surgery: role and responsibility of surgeon in legal point of view

Robotic surgery (RS) technology has undergone rapid growth in the surgical field since its approval. In clinical practice, failure of robotic procedures mainly results from a surgeon's inability or to a device malfunction. We reviewed the literature to estimate the impact of this second circumstance in RS and its consequent legal implications. According to data from the literature, device malfunction is rare. We believe it is necessary to complement surgical training with a technical understanding of RS devices.

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

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.

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Robotic surgery for gastric cancer overcomes technical difficulties with laparoscopic gastrectomy. Its benefits include reduced intraoperative bleeding and shorter hospital stays; it is also easier to learn. Because accuracy increases during lymphadenectomy, a larger number of lymph nodes is likely to be retrieved using robotic gastrectomy. Higher costs and longer operation times have hindered the widespread adaptation and use of robotic surgery. In this review, we summarize the current status and issues regarding robotic gastrectomy.

Robotic liver surgery

Robotic surgery is an evolving technology that has been successfully applied to a number of surgical specialties, but its use in liver surgery has so far been limited. In this review article we discuss the challenges of minimally invasive liver surgery, the pros and cons of robotics, the evolution of medical robots, and the potentials in applying this technology to liver surgery. The current data in the literature are also presented.

MAUDE: analysis of robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adverse events encountered during robotic gynecologic surgery, as reported to the FDA MAUDE database from January 2006 to December 2012.

DESIGN

Database search (Canadian Task Force classification III).

INTERVENTION

A search of the FDA MAUDE database was performed by brand name "da Vinci" and manufacturer "Intuitive Surgical." Reports reflecting gynecologic procedures either by description or procedure name were included. A record of reports was kept to ensure that no duplicates were added. The date and type of event (operator-related error, technical system failure, or surgical injuries attributed to use of the robot) and the clinical outcome were recorded.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six percent of reported events (n = 73) resulted in injury, and 8.5% (n = 24) resulted in death. Of note, although adnexal procedures were performed in <3% of the cohort, they accounted for 20% of the fatalities. Twenty-one percent of injuries were attributed to operator-related error, and 14% to technical system failure; 65% were not directly related to use of the robot. Fifteen deaths were reported during planned hysterectomy. Four of those were due to injury to a major blood vessel (iliac artery in 3, and aorta in 1), although a detailed description of how the injury occurred was absent from the event description.

CONCLUSION

It is important to continue to evaluate the occurrence of injuries during robot-assisted surgery in an effort to identify unique challenges associated with this advanced technology.

Reliability of robotic system during general surgical procedures in a university hospital

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.

No differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after robot-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer: a case-control study of 263 patients

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopy has been reported to be a safe and feasible alternative to traditional laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare short-term results in patients with colonic cancer who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic colonic resection (RC) or laparoscopic colonic resection (LC).

METHODS

The study was a retrospective case control study of all patients with colonic cancer who underwent RC from March 2010 to March 2012 or LC from January 2009 to December 2011 at a tertiary-care university hospital. Data were retrieved from the national chart database and patient journals. Biochemical markers [C-reactive protein (CRP), hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and thrombocyte count] were recorded before surgery and for the first 3 days after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients underwent RC and 162 patients underwent LC. There were no significant differences in the rate of conversion to open surgery, number of permanent enterostomies, number of intraoperative complications, level of postoperative cellular stress response, number of postoperative complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, or 30-day mortality between the two groups. There was a significantly longer setup time for RC (77.1 vs. 69.7 min, P = 0.000), but surgical time was significantly shorter for RC (165.8 vs. 183.4 min, P = 0.006) and there was no difference in the overall procedure time (254.0 vs. 243.6 min, P = 0.086).

CONCLUSION

We found RC to be a safe and feasible alternative to LC for colonic cancer. We found that for RC surgical time was shorter and overall procedure time was comparable to that for LC; however, these results should be confirmed in future randomized clinical trials.