Robotic malfunction checklist: a guide to operating room safety, efficiency, and surgeon autonomy
- PMID: 40696214
- DOI: 10.1007/s00464-025-12006-7
Robotic malfunction checklist: a guide to operating room safety, efficiency, and surgeon autonomy
Abstract
Importance: Surgical robots encounter malfunctions requiring swift resolution, impacting patient safety and surgical efficiency. A Robotic Malfunction Checklist (RMC) may enhance surgical team autonomy reduce stress and intraoperative downtime.
Objective: To assess the efficacy of a step-by-step RMC for troubleshooting surgical robot errors through a randomized controlled trial simulation.
Design: An IRB-approved study conducted a needs analysis to identify common robotic errors. A specialized RMC was then developed and tested in a randomized simulation setting, utilizing the da Vinci Xi system.
Setting: Simulation environment utilizing the da Vinci Xi surgical robot system.
Participants: Thirty-one participants, including surgery residents and attendings were allocated to either the control (n = 16) or experimental groups (n = 15).
Interventions: Control group participants addressed errors conventionally, while experimental group members utilized the RMC for troubleshooting.
Main outcomes and measures: Post-survey data, including NASA Task Load Index (TLX) scores were collected to assess task load and confidence in troubleshooting. Statistical analysis involved the Mann-Whitney U test and Fischer's exact test.
Results: The experimental group significantly expedited resolution of the third complex error (3.9 min; IQR = 5.2; P < 0.01), representing a 43% reduction in resolution time. Task load was notably lower in the experimental group across all TLX domains for error 3 and in 4 out of 5 domains for error 2 (P < .05). Experimental group members expressed increased confidence in troubleshooting in live patient settings if provided with the RMC.
Conclusions and relevance: ARMC reduced the time to resolve robotic errors and decreased stress load on surgeons. These promising findings advocate for further evaluation and potential implementation of the RMC in live operative settings.
Keywords: Da VINCI Xi; Robotic malfunction; Simulation.
© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Disclosures: Alexis Desir, Kaustubh Gopal, John Norton, and Ganesh Sankaranarayanan have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Herbert J. Zeh III: On the SST Scientific Advisory Board for which he received stock options.
References
-
- Lane T (2018) A short history of robotic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 100(6_sup):5–7. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.supp1.5
-
- Maza G, Sharma A (2020) Past, present, and future of robotic surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 53(6):935–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2020.07.005 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Morrell ALG, Morrell-Junior AC, Morrell AG et al (2021) The history of robotic surgery and its evolution: when illusion becomes reality. Rev Col Bras Cir 48:e20202798. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-20202798 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Rajih E, Tholomier C, Cormier B et al (2017) Error reporting from the da Vinci surgical system in robotic surgery: a Canadian multispecialty experience at a single academic centre. Can Urol Assoc J 11(5):E197–E202. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4116 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Kowalewski KF, Seifert L, Ali S et al (2021) Functional outcomes after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 35(1):81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07361-1 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical