Malfunction Events in the US FDA MAUDE Database: How Does Robotic Gynecologic Surgery Compare with Other Specialties?
Gynecologic surgery
MAUDE
Robotic surgery
Journal
Journal of minimally invasive gynecology
ISSN: 1553-4669
Titre abrégé: J Minim Invasive Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101235322
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
received:
07
05
2021
revised:
20
08
2021
accepted:
23
08
2021
pubmed:
1
9
2021
medline:
29
3
2022
entrez:
31
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To review malfunction events (MEs) related to the use of the da Vinci robot reported to the United States Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience in the last 10 years and compare gynecologic surgery with other surgical specialties. A retrospective review. Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. Reports from 2010 to 2020 with keywords "Davinci" and "Intuitive". Report review. There were 679 reports included in the final analysis. Most MEs occurred intraoperatively (81.7%) and were related to robotic instrument malfunction (84.5%), and 30% required an instrument switch to complete the procedure. Conversion to open and laparoscopic surgery was required in 3.1% and 1.3% of MEs, respectively. Injury to the patient occurred in 15.6% of MEs. Of the reported injuries to patients, 6.6% were related to robotic malfunction, 49.2% to instrument malfunction, and 18% to surgeon or staff misuse of the robotic system, and 15.6% were complications inherent to the procedure, not related to the robotic system. Of all the reported MEs, 4.4% were related to robot malfunction, 1.5% to console malfunction, 73.3% to Intuitive accessory malfunction, 11.2% to other accessory malfunction, 4% to surgeon or staff misuse of robotic system, and 3% to complications inherent to the procedure. Comparison between gynecologic surgery and other surgical specialties showed that 14.4% of issues were solved intraoperatively in gynecologic surgery vs 13.7% in other specialties (p = .185). The procedure was completed robotically in 85.2% in gynecologic surgery vs 84% in other specialties, laparoscopically 4.6% vs 3.7%, and open in 10.2% vs 12.4%, respectively (p = .883). In gynecologic surgery, reported MEs were made by patients in 14.8% vs 4.8% in other specialties, manufacturer in 78.4% vs 74.2%, and operating room staff in 2.3% vs 16.1%, respectively (p = .007). Injury to patient was similar in gynecologic surgery compared with other specialties (35.1% vs 23.4%, p = .122). Gynecologic and other specialty MEs did not state the need for procedure rescheduling (0% vs 0%). Most reported robotic MEs occurred intraoperatively, were related to robotic instrument malfunctions, and required an instrument switch. Most surgeries are completed robotically, but conversion to either an open or laparoscopic approach was reported in 4.4%. Of the 114 reported injuries, 47.4% were Clavien-Dindo grade III+. There were no differences noted in patient injury between gynecologic surgery and other specialties.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34464761
pii: S1553-4650(21)00407-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.08.021
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
300-307.e1Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.