The da Vinci robot doesn't actually operate on you. A surgeon does—sitting at a console across the room, watching a magnified 3D image on a screen, manipulating controls that translate hand movements into the precise motions of instruments inside your body. The robot is the intermediary, a sophisticated mechanical system that promises enhanced precision and minimally invasive access.
When that system fails, or when the surgeon controlling it lacks adequate skill, you have a problem that didn't exist before robotic surgery became widespread: a machine between you and the surgeon, and sometimes no clarity about whether the error was human or mechanical.
The Promise and the Reality
Robotic surgery offers genuine advantages for appropriate cases. Smaller incisions mean less pain and faster recovery. The magnified visualization helps surgeons see anatomical details they might miss with the naked eye. Scaled and filtered movements can smooth out natural hand tremors, enabling more precise work in delicate areas.
But the marketing has sometimes outpaced the evidence. Robotic surgery isn't automatically better than traditional approaches—outcomes depend heavily on surgeon skill, patient selection, and whether the technology suits the specific procedure. The learning curve is steep, and patients operated on by surgeons still climbing that curve bear the risk of their inexperience.
Mechanical Failures
The da Vinci system is complex equipment with many potential failure points. Instruments can malfunction, failing to respond correctly to surgeon commands or moving in unexpected ways. Electrical arcing from cautery instruments can burn tissue the surgeon never intended to touch, injuring organs adjacent to the surgical site. Software glitches can cause system crashes that require emergency conversion to open surgery—a jarring transition that carries its own risks.
When mechanical failures cause injury, the manufacturer may be liable under product liability theories. This is distinct from medical malpractice: instead of proving the surgeon fell below the standard of care, you prove the machine itself was defective in design, manufacturing, or the warnings provided with it. Some cases involve both—a mechanical problem compounded by inadequate surgeon response.
Human Failures
More often than mechanical malfunction, robotic surgery injuries trace back to the human at the console. The surgeon may lack adequate training in robotic techniques—and unlike board certification in surgical specialties, no standardized certification exists for robotic surgery. Individual hospitals set their own credentialing requirements, which range from extensive proctored cases to acceptance of brief manufacturer training courses. The surgeon operating on you might have performed hundreds of robotic procedures or might be early in a learning curve that studies show correlates with higher complication rates.
Poor patient selection causes problems too. Robotic surgery isn't ideal for every patient or every procedure. Some patients' anatomy, body habitus, or medical complexity makes traditional approaches safer. Surgeons who push inappropriate cases into robotic procedures—whether from enthusiasm for the technology, financial incentives, or institutional pressure—put patients at unnecessary risk.
Failure to convert is another common issue. When something goes wrong during robotic surgery, the appropriate response is often to convert to open surgery where the surgeon has direct access and visualization. Surgeons who persist with the robotic approach despite mounting problems, reluctant to abandon the technology they've invested in learning, cause preventable harm.
The Informed Consent Problem
Patients choosing robotic surgery have a right to know relevant information about their surgeon's experience and the technology's limitations. How many robotic procedures has this surgeon performed? What are the complication rates? How do outcomes compare to traditional approaches for this specific procedure? If you weren't told that your surgeon was still relatively new to robotic techniques, you may have a claim based on inadequate informed consent, regardless of whether the surgery itself was performed negligently.
Evidence That Matters
Robotic systems generate extensive data logs recording instrument movements, system commands, error codes, and alerts. Some systems record video of the surgical field. This electronic trail can reconstruct exactly what happened during surgery—whether the machine malfunctioned or the surgeon made errors. Attorneys should move quickly to preserve this data before it's overwritten or becomes unavailable, as it may be the key evidence distinguishing a mechanical failure from human negligence.
Two Paths to Recovery
Robotic surgery injuries can support medical malpractice claims against the surgeon and hospital for inadequate training, poor technique, or failure to respond appropriately to complications. They can also support product liability claims against the manufacturer if the robot itself was defective. The best approach depends on the specific facts—what went wrong, why it went wrong, and who bears responsibility for the failure that injured you.