Laparoscopic surgery has been a popular choice by many patients and surgeons when it’s possible. Laparoscopic surgeries tout smaller incisions and shorter recovery times. But it’s not always clear whether those claims represent the truth or aggressive marketing. (We suspect the latter.)
The da Vinci robot has been widely and aggressively marketed as a laparoscopic wonder-toy primarily for gynecological and urologic surgeries which make up about 80% of the robot’s workload. Claims about the advantages of the robot would have you believe that the robot is able to perform an operation with greater accuracy than a skilled surgeon’s human hand. (Ultimately, our Houston surgical injury lawyers note that it is still the surgeon who manipulates the robot through a computer.) But the welling number of reported injuries and deaths, even as researchers point out that these da Vinci robot injuries and deaths are vastly UNDERreported, indicates that the robot’s accuracy and advantages might be greatly overstated.
Intuitive Surgical Inc. of Sunnyvale, California makes the Da Vinci surgical robot. The FDA first approved the robot for surgical use in 2000. Since then, more than 1 million procedures have been performed using the robot. The robot was used for more than 360,000 surgeries in the United States just last year, up from slightly more than 290,000 in 2011.
Between the years 2007 and 2011, use of robotic devices for surgery grew by more than 400% in the United States. Around 1,400 of the robots, which cost between $1.5 and $2.5 million, have been purchased by U.S. hospitals. And since January 2000, our Houston surgical injury lawyers warn that literally thousands of mishaps involving the robot have been reported to the FDA.
The types of injuries reported from use of the da Vinci robot include:
33% of deaths attributed to the da Vinci robot involved gynecological procedures, and 43% of all injuries related to hysterectomies. Not a good track record, in the opinion of our Houston surgical injury lawyers at Denena Points, PC. Continue to Part 2 to learn more about flawed medical device reporting requirements and lack of oversight and enforcement in the reporting system.