Instrument Failures for the AirSeal device: a Food and Drug Administration MAUDE Database Study” - Beyond the Abstract

This study provides valuable insights into a growing concern in minimally invasive surgery (MIS): the safety and reliability of surgical devices. We focus on the AirSeal insufflation system, a widely adopted technology recognized for its ability to maintain low-pressure pneumoperitoneum while ensuring stable surgical conditions. While the advantages of this device, especially for patients with cardiopulmonary issues, are well-documented, we highlight an underreported area—the potential failures and complications associated with its use.

The methodology employed is robust, utilizing the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which tracks device-related malfunctions and adverse events. By examining reports from 2014 to 2023, we provide a significant temporal scope, covering nearly a decade of device usage. However, as acknowledged, one limitation is the reliance on voluntary reporting, a common characteristic of post-marketing surveillance systems like MAUDE. This introduces the possibility of underreporting, where minor or non-fatal complications may not be consistently documented, resulting in an incomplete safety profile for the device.

The findings are both concerning and informative. Notably, 64.7% of reported failures were attributed to device breakage, suggesting a critical area for manufacturers to enhance material durability. Furthermore, the discovery that 24.1% of failures had “no identified cause” raises alarm about potential unknown risks that may not be easily mitigated. The report of nine deaths associated with the device, some involving unexplained cardiac arrests, underscores the necessity for further investigation into the specific mechanisms that may contribute to these outcomes.

Methodologically, while we effectively categorize failure types—such as breakage, leaks, pressure problems, and patient-device interactions—there is a gap in understanding the clinical consequences of these failures. It would be beneficial to explore how these mechanical issues directly impact patient outcomes during surgery, beyond merely noting occurrences of embolisms and pneumothorax. Understanding the correlation between device failure and clinical complications would provide deeper insights into whether these failures result in significant deviations from expected surgical outcomes or if they represent manageable intraoperative challenges.

Additionally, our study reveals that most reported issues were linked to trocars rather than the insufflator itself. This distinction could guide future device-specific modifications aimed at minimizing trocar-related complications. It also highlights the importance of ongoing training and familiarity with these instruments among surgeons and operating room personnel to reduce risks.

Despite the valuable data presented, there are important limitations to consider. The lack of postoperative complication data and limited follow-up details prevent a comprehensive assessment of the long-term impacts of device failures. Moreover, the absence of information regarding the types of procedures during which failures occurred hinders our ability to determine whether specific procedures, patient demographics, or clinical conditions are associated with a higher likelihood of device failure.

We rightly emphasize that the voluntary nature of MAUDE reporting likely leads to underreporting, as healthcare providers may hesitate to report due to legal concerns or other professional pressures. Additionally, our study does not capture how frequently the AirSeal system is used in surgical settings, leaving questions about the overall incidence of failure relative to device usage.

In conclusion, this study marks an important step toward understanding the risks associated with the AirSeal insufflation system. It underscores the necessity for continual post-market surveillance, robust reporting systems, and open communication between healthcare providers and device manufacturers. While the AirSeal system offers clear clinical benefits, the frequency and nature of the described device malfunctions suggest that further improvements are essential to enhance its safety profile. Additional research is needed to better understand the root causes of these failures and to develop targeted strategies for mitigation. Insights gained from such studies could pave the way for refining not only the AirSeal system but also other advanced surgical devices, ensuring the safe and effective evolution of MIS.

Written by:

  • Laith Baqain, School of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
  • Mohammed Shahait, Department of Surgery, Clemenceau Medical Center, Dubai, UAE
Read the Abstract