Medical malpractice and transoral robotic surgery: Evaluation and some preemptive thoughts

Daniel D. Lydiatt, Ryan Sewell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Medical malpractice is costly and disruptive, and it is important to prevent. We conducted a study with the objective to look at medical malpractice in robotic surgery overall, to evaluate reasons for litigation, and to comment on possible strategies to avoid litigation with transoral robotic surgery. We used the Westlaw computerized database to identify all state and federal verdict summaries in medical malpractice cases. We found 17 cases alleging malpractice that involved the use of robotic surgery. In all, the plaintiffs in 6 cases (35%) contended that an open rather than a robotic approach should have been used, 5 (29%) alleged negligent credentialing, 4 (24%) alleged training deficiencies, 2 (12%) alleged manufacturing problems, and 1 (6%) charged that robotic surgery should have been performed instead of open surgery (1 case involved two of these allegations). In 11 cases (65%), plaintiffs charged that robotic surgery contributed to an undesirable outcome, and in 6 cases (35%) they raised concerns about informed consent. In all, only 5 of the 17 lawsuits (29%) resulted in plaintiff verdicts or settlements; damages ranged from $95,000 to $7.5 million. We believe the courts should not play a major role in establishing safety guidelines for the introduction of new technology such as robotic surgery. Instead, training and credentialing guidelines should be established by appropriate national associations and societies to assist hospitals in doing so.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)477-480
Number of pages4
JournalEar, Nose and Throat Journal
Volume96
Issue number12
StatePublished - Dec 1 2017

Fingerprint

Malpractice
Robotics
Credentialing
Jurisprudence
Guidelines
Informed Consent
Databases
Technology
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Medical malpractice and transoral robotic surgery : Evaluation and some preemptive thoughts. / Lydiatt, Daniel D.; Sewell, Ryan.

In: Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, Vol. 96, No. 12, 01.12.2017, p. 477-480.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b3de96f00b8449f99d5f8b07bb9cf327,
title = "Medical malpractice and transoral robotic surgery: Evaluation and some preemptive thoughts",
abstract = "Medical malpractice is costly and disruptive, and it is important to prevent. We conducted a study with the objective to look at medical malpractice in robotic surgery overall, to evaluate reasons for litigation, and to comment on possible strategies to avoid litigation with transoral robotic surgery. We used the Westlaw computerized database to identify all state and federal verdict summaries in medical malpractice cases. We found 17 cases alleging malpractice that involved the use of robotic surgery. In all, the plaintiffs in 6 cases (35{\%}) contended that an open rather than a robotic approach should have been used, 5 (29{\%}) alleged negligent credentialing, 4 (24{\%}) alleged training deficiencies, 2 (12{\%}) alleged manufacturing problems, and 1 (6{\%}) charged that robotic surgery should have been performed instead of open surgery (1 case involved two of these allegations). In 11 cases (65{\%}), plaintiffs charged that robotic surgery contributed to an undesirable outcome, and in 6 cases (35{\%}) they raised concerns about informed consent. In all, only 5 of the 17 lawsuits (29{\%}) resulted in plaintiff verdicts or settlements; damages ranged from $95,000 to $7.5 million. We believe the courts should not play a major role in establishing safety guidelines for the introduction of new technology such as robotic surgery. Instead, training and credentialing guidelines should be established by appropriate national associations and societies to assist hospitals in doing so.",
author = "Lydiatt, {Daniel D.} and Ryan Sewell",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "96",
pages = "477--480",
journal = "Ear, Nose and Throat Journal",
issn = "0145-5613",
publisher = "Medquest Communications LLC",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Medical malpractice and transoral robotic surgery

T2 - Evaluation and some preemptive thoughts

AU - Lydiatt, Daniel D.

AU - Sewell, Ryan

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - Medical malpractice is costly and disruptive, and it is important to prevent. We conducted a study with the objective to look at medical malpractice in robotic surgery overall, to evaluate reasons for litigation, and to comment on possible strategies to avoid litigation with transoral robotic surgery. We used the Westlaw computerized database to identify all state and federal verdict summaries in medical malpractice cases. We found 17 cases alleging malpractice that involved the use of robotic surgery. In all, the plaintiffs in 6 cases (35%) contended that an open rather than a robotic approach should have been used, 5 (29%) alleged negligent credentialing, 4 (24%) alleged training deficiencies, 2 (12%) alleged manufacturing problems, and 1 (6%) charged that robotic surgery should have been performed instead of open surgery (1 case involved two of these allegations). In 11 cases (65%), plaintiffs charged that robotic surgery contributed to an undesirable outcome, and in 6 cases (35%) they raised concerns about informed consent. In all, only 5 of the 17 lawsuits (29%) resulted in plaintiff verdicts or settlements; damages ranged from $95,000 to $7.5 million. We believe the courts should not play a major role in establishing safety guidelines for the introduction of new technology such as robotic surgery. Instead, training and credentialing guidelines should be established by appropriate national associations and societies to assist hospitals in doing so.

AB - Medical malpractice is costly and disruptive, and it is important to prevent. We conducted a study with the objective to look at medical malpractice in robotic surgery overall, to evaluate reasons for litigation, and to comment on possible strategies to avoid litigation with transoral robotic surgery. We used the Westlaw computerized database to identify all state and federal verdict summaries in medical malpractice cases. We found 17 cases alleging malpractice that involved the use of robotic surgery. In all, the plaintiffs in 6 cases (35%) contended that an open rather than a robotic approach should have been used, 5 (29%) alleged negligent credentialing, 4 (24%) alleged training deficiencies, 2 (12%) alleged manufacturing problems, and 1 (6%) charged that robotic surgery should have been performed instead of open surgery (1 case involved two of these allegations). In 11 cases (65%), plaintiffs charged that robotic surgery contributed to an undesirable outcome, and in 6 cases (35%) they raised concerns about informed consent. In all, only 5 of the 17 lawsuits (29%) resulted in plaintiff verdicts or settlements; damages ranged from $95,000 to $7.5 million. We believe the courts should not play a major role in establishing safety guidelines for the introduction of new technology such as robotic surgery. Instead, training and credentialing guidelines should be established by appropriate national associations and societies to assist hospitals in doing so.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038206891&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038206891&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 29236272

AN - SCOPUS:85038206891

VL - 96

SP - 477

EP - 480

JO - Ear, Nose and Throat Journal

JF - Ear, Nose and Throat Journal

SN - 0145-5613

IS - 12

ER -