You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Instrumentation & Technology III1 Apr 2018PD40-02 UNDERSTANDING LITIGATION TRENDS FOR ROBOTIC UROLOGIC SURGERIES Colby P. Souders MD, Hanson H. Zhao MD, Justin Houman MD, Farnoosh Nik-Ahd BA, Bilal Chughtai MD, Lynn McClelland JD MPH, and Jennifer T. Anger MD MPH Colby P. Souders MDColby P. Souders MD More articles by this author , Hanson H. Zhao MDHanson H. Zhao MD More articles by this author , Justin Houman MDJustin Houman MD More articles by this author , Farnoosh Nik-Ahd BAFarnoosh Nik-Ahd BA More articles by this author , Bilal Chughtai MDBilal Chughtai MD More articles by this author , Lynn McClelland JD MPHLynn McClelland JD MPH More articles by this author , and Jennifer T. Anger MD MPHJennifer T. Anger MD MPH More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.1927AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The number of robotic procedures performed in 2015 (140,000) was more than triple compared to 2012. In a study by Cooper et al., complications associated with the surgical robot were underreported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We sought to characterize complications associated with robotic surgery by evaluating the legal cases involving robotic procedures. METHODS A law librarian performed a search of the Bloomberg Law database for product liability claims with the defendant ″Intuitive Surgical.″ The results were then hand-culled by the librarian to ensure they were patient claims against the company for issues with the surgical robot. All of the available legal documents related to 123 cases identified were downloaded and reviewed by the research team. The following data points were abstracted from the legal documents: date filed, surgery date, surgery type, robot type, instrument type, complications, and case outcomes. Class action claims were not evaluated, as the above data points could not be abstracted from the available data. RESULTS 123 relevant claims were identified, 35% of which were ultimately dismissed. The peak filing year was 2013 at 32 claims followed by 2014 (22) and 2015 (23), followed by a decline in 2016 (7). 18% of the cases were related to urologic surgeries, 86% of which were prostatectomies. 10/22 urologic claims were dismissed. The most commonly cited injury within the urologic cases was bowel injury (8), erectile dysfunction (5), fistula (5), and incontinence (4). 55% of the cases filed were related to OB/GYN surgeries, 87% of those cases were hysterectomies. See Table 1. CONCLUSIONS It is reassuring that the rate of lawsuits filed is not increasing at a dramatic rate as the volume of robotic surgeries performed annually continues to increase. This may be due the improving quality of surgical skills with the robot, as well as improvements in robot software and instruments. Although clinical information is limited, it appears that device-specific complications were rare. The majority of claims appear to be surgical error and not device specific. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e803 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Colby P. Souders MD More articles by this author Hanson H. Zhao MD More articles by this author Justin Houman MD More articles by this author Farnoosh Nik-Ahd BA More articles by this author Bilal Chughtai MD More articles by this author Lynn McClelland JD MPH More articles by this author Jennifer T. Anger MD MPH More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...