Robotic sacrocolpopexy: adverse events reported to the FDA over the last decade

  • Colby Souders
  • Farnoosh Nik-Ahd
  • Hanson Zhao
  • Karyn Eilber
  • Bilal Chugtai
  • Jennifer AngerEmail author
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

As surgeons increase the volume of robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexies (rASCs) and become more experienced, a subsequent decrease in the number of adverse events is expected over time. Further, as the leading manufacturer of the operative robot (Intuitive Surgical) improves the technology, adverse events should also decrease. We hypothesized that there has been a decrease in adverse event reporting for rASCs and that serious adverse events are rare.


We performed a search of the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. All entries with the manufacturer “Intuitive Surgical” were exported from 2007 to 2017. All entries with “sacrocolpopexy” were then isolated and analyzed.


The number of adverse events reported for rASC peaked in 2013 and 2014, at 107 and 124 respectively. In 2015 and 2016, the number dropped to 11 and 7 respectively. There were 334 reported adverse events from 2007 to 2017. Five (1.50%) were categorized as death, 33 (9.88%) as injury, and 296 (88.62%) as malfunction. Analysis of the malfunction reports found that 15 out of 296 (5.07%) were converted to open surgery, 4 out of 296 (1.3%) were converted to laparoscopic surgery, 4 out of 296 (1.3%) cases were aborted, and 6 out of 296 (2.03%) malfunctions resulted in patient injury.


Although the MAUDE database has its limitations, it does indicate that the number of adverse events reported for rASC peaked in 2013 and 2014 and has decreased annually since then. This may be due to improved proficiency of the surgeon and surgical team, in addition to improvements in the robot. When malfunctions do occur, they infrequently cause serious injury or have an impact on surgical approach.


Abdominal sacrocolpopexy Adverse events Pelvic organ prolapse Robotic surgery 



Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy


Manufacturer and user facility device experience


Pelvic organ prolapse


Reported adverse events


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, et al. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurkijarvi K, Aaltonen R, Gissler M, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Finland from 1987 to 2009: a national register based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;214:71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, et al. Outcomes of robotic Sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstruct Surg. 2014;20:252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    FDA: US Food and Drug Administration MAUDE. Manufacturer and user facility device experience 2018, 2018. Accessed May 2018.
  8. 8.
    FDA Administration. Mandatory reporting requirements: manufacturers, importers and device user facilities. Internet 2018, 2018. Accessed October 2018.
  9. 9.
    Andonian S, Okeke Z, Okeke DA, et al. Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database. Can J Urol. 2008;15:3912.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman DCW, Lendvay TS, Hannaford B. Instrument failures for the da Vinci Surgical system: a Food and Drug Administration MAUDE database study. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sandberg JM, Gray I, Pearlman A, et al. An evaluation of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database that inspired the United States Food and Drug Administration’s reclassification of transvaginal mesh. Investigat Clin Urol. 2018;59:126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterBeverly HillsUSA
  2. 2.David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Weill Cornell Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations