In the United States, a patient reportedly sustained a serious intestinal injury during a robotic procedure performed with a Da Vinci system, a claim reported by Internal Edition (IE).
The incident is said to have occurred in September 2021 during a colon surgery connected to cancer treatment. It is reported that the patient suffered a thermal burn to the small intestine, with the organ rupturing as a result of a malfunction linked to the robotic system being controlled by the surgeon.
According to the filing, the patient did not fully recover from the injuries and experienced ongoing health issues after the initial procedure. Approximately two years later, the patient’s spouse filed legal documents and initiated a lawsuit against Intuitive Surgical, the manufacturer of the Da Vinci robotic system. The suit seeks financial compensation and an unspecified fine related to the alleged damages.
The lawsuit claims the injury led to persistent abdominal pain and fever, and notes that health problems persisted after a subsequent surgery intended to address complications from the first operation. The pleadings assert that the injury caused pain and emotional distress, with medical expenses, hospital stays, ongoing treatment, caregiving, rehabilitation, and related costs alleged to have accumulated as a result of the incident.
Sezgisel Surgery has not responded to media inquiries. Public statements on the company’s website acknowledge that patients may be harmed when Da Vinci systems are utilized, and the plaintiff contends that there was insufficient disclosure of potential consequences associated with the robotic procedure.
The case underscores ongoing concerns about safety and accountability in robotic-assisted surgery, highlighting the need for clear informed consent, robust device monitoring, and transparent reporting of adverse events. It also raises questions about manufacturer responsibility and the role of healthcare providers in ensuring patient understanding of complex medical technologies.
As with many medical-device related disputes, details such as surgical technique, patient characteristics, and the sequence of events during the operation are critical to the legal arguments. Proponents of robotic-assisted surgery emphasize potential benefits, including precision and smaller incisions, while critics stress the importance of rigorous training, device fail-safes, and continuous post-market surveillance to mitigate risks. This ongoing case contributes to the broader dialogue on how best to balance innovation with patient safety in modern surgical care.