English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Understanding the causes and patient impacts of surgical adverse events willhelp improve systems and operational practices to avoid incidents in thefuture. We analyzed the adverse events data related to robotic systems andinstruments used in minimally invasive surgery, reported to the U.S. FDA MAUDEdatabase from January 2000 to December 2013. We determined the number of eventsreported per procedure and per surgical specialty, the most common types ofdevice malfunctions and their impact on patients, and the causes forcatastrophic events such as major complications, patient injuries, and deaths.During the study period, 144 deaths (1.4% of the 10,624 reports), 1,391 patientinjuries (13.1%), and 8,061 device malfunctions (75.9%) were reported. Thenumbers of injury and death events per procedure have stayed relativelyconstant since 2007 (mean = 83.4, 95% CI, 74.2-92.7). Surgical specialties, forwhich robots are extensively used, such as gynecology and urology, had lowernumber of injuries, deaths, and conversions per procedure than more complexsurgeries, such as cardiothoracic and head and neck (106.3 vs. 232.9, RiskRatio = 2.2, 95% CI, 1.9-2.6). Device and instrument malfunctions, such asfalling 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 amajor part of the reports. Device malfunctions impacted patients in terms ofinjuries or procedure interruptions. In 1,104 (10.4%) of the events, theprocedure was interrupted to restart the system (3.1%), to convert theprocedure to non-robotic techniques (7.3%), or to reschedule it to a later time(2.5%). Adoption of advanced techniques in design and operation of roboticsurgical systems may reduce these preventable incidents in the future.

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