da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ON MAY 30, 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) RECEIVED A JOURNAL ARTICLE TITLED,THE NEPHROMETRY SCORE: IS IT EFFECTIVE FOR PREDICTING PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOME DURING ROBOT-ASSISTED PARTIAL NEPHRECTOMY? THIS ARTICLE IS FROM KOREAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, PUBLISHED IN 2014. ACCORDING TO THE REPORTED ARTICLE, PERIOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS OCCURRED IN 16 PATIENTS, INCLUDING 6 PERIRENAL ORGAN INJURIES, 2 OPEN CONVERSIONS, 3 WOUND COMPLICATIONS, AND 3 GROSS HEMATURIA CASES. ORGAN INJURY CASES CONSISTED OF TWO RENAL VEIN LACERATIONS, TWO SPLEEN INJURIES, AND ONE LIVER AND COLON INJURY. TWO OPEN CONVERSIONS WERE DETERMINED OWING TO DIFFICULTY IN APPROACHING THE ISOLATED RENAL TUMOR AND A TOO SMALL PERITONEAL CAVITY FOR ROBOT CONTROL, RESPECTIVELY. POSTOPERATIVELY, THERE WERE THREE HEMATURIA AND TRANSFUSION CASES, ONE WOUND PROBLEM, ONE ILEUS, AND ONE MINOR PROBLEM RANKED AS CLAVIEN GRADE I OR II. THE MAJOR POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS CLASSIFIED AS CLAVIEN GRADE III WERE TWO OTHER WOUND PROBLEMS THAT NEEDED REPAIRING AND ONE CASE OF ABDOMINAL FLUID COLLECTION THAT REQUIRED PERCUTANEOUS DRAINAGE. UNIVARIATE AND MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES REVEALED THAT NO PARAMETER HAD A SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION WITH PERI

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT POST A DA VINCI LOW ANTERIOR RESECTION (LAR) PROCEDURE PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2014, THE PATIENT PRESENTED SYMPTOMS OF AN ANASTOMOTIC LEAK ON (B)(6) 2014, REQUIRING THE PATIENT TO UNDERGO A SURGICAL PROCEDURE TO REPAIR THE LEAK AND A COLOSTOMY. DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE, THE SITE CONTACTED INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) TECHNICAL SUPPORT ENGINEERING (TSE) DUE TO EXPERIENCING ARTICULATION ISSUES WITH THE PATIENT SIDE MANIPULATOR (PSM) ARM 1. THE SITE TOLD THE TSE THAT THEY RESEATED THE STERILE ADAPTER SEVERAL TIMES, BUT DID NOT REPLACE THE DRAPE. THEY ALSO INSTALLED OTHER INSTRUMENTS; HOWEVER THE ISSUE PERSISTED. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE TSE, THE SITE STOWED PSM 1 AND COMPLETED THE PLANNED PROCEDURE USING PSM 2 AND PSM 3. AFTER SOME TIME, THE ISI CLINICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE (CSR) WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE, CALLED BACK ISI TSE AND REPORTED THAT WHEN SHE CLUTCHED AND MOVED PSM 1, IT BARELY MOVED. ON (B)(6) 2014, A FIELD INVESTIGATION WAS PERFORMED BY THE ISI FIELD SERVICE ENGINEER (FSE). THE FSE WAS ABLE TO REPLICATE THE ISSUE WITH THE PSM EXPERIENCED BY THE SITE. DURING FUNCTIONAL TESTING, AFTER PERFORMING AN EMERGENCY-STOP AND FAULT OVERR

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER UNDERGOING A DA VINCI-ASSISTED HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT'S VAGINAL CUFF AND AN UNSPECIFIED VEIN ALLEGEDLY TORE OPEN ON POST-OPERATIVE DAY 18. DUE TO ALLEGEDLY LOSING SIGNIFICANT BLOOD, THE PATIENT INDICATED THAT SHE RECEIVED DAILY TRANSFUSIONS FOR SEVEN STRAIGHT DAYS. AS A RESULT OF THE POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS, THE PATIENT CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS SUFFERED FROM MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES. IN RELATION TO THE REPORTED EVENT, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) RECEIVED FDA VOLUNTARY REPORT MW5070734 ON 07/14/2017 WITH THE FOLLOWING EVENT DESCRIPTION: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDS FRIDAY (B)(6) 2017. PLEASE HELP! (B)(6) ATTORNEY (B)(6) HAS BEEN LOOKING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY FOR AN OPEN CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT OR SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE SUFFICIENT RESEARCH ON THE DA VINCI ROBOT TO HELP. I HAD A HYSTERECTOMY USING THE DA VINCI ROBOT ON (B)(6) 2014. ON (B)(6) 2014, THE VAGINAL CUFF TORE OPEN, ALONG WITH A VEIN. I LOST SIGNIFICANT BLOOD. SO MUCH THAT ONE OF THE TRAUMA NURSES AND MY MOTHER HAD ME SIGN A STATEMENT SAYING WHO WOULD GET MY DAUGHTER AND WITNESSED IT. THE NURSE WHO WITNESSED MY SIGNATURE, (B)(6), TOLD ME LATER THAT SHE WAS SHOCKED TO SEE ME ALIVE. IN ALL H

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: I HAD A HYSTERECTOMY WITH THE DA VINCI SURGICAL ASSISTANT AND MY DUODENUM WAS PUNCTURED RESULTING IN A PELVIC ABSCESS.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ATTORNEYS HAVE ALLEGED THAT THEIR CLIENTS SUFFERED INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURES. THESE CLAIMS DO NOT INVOLVE DEATHS. THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE FIRST RECEIVED BY INTUITIVE SURGICAL DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF (B)(6) 2013 TO (B)(6) 2014. FOR THOSE CLAIMS WHERE PROCEDURE DATES ARE PROVIDED, THE DATES RANGE FROM (B)(6) 2013.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT POST A DA VINCI SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED AN ANASTOMOTIC LEAK. NO OTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: DURING A DAVINCI ASSISTED LEFT UPPER LOBECTOMY, THE SURGEON PLACED A LARGE HEM-O-LOK CLIP ON THE PULMONARY ARTERY AND CLIPPED IT. THE CLIP DID NOT RELEASE FROM THE INSTRUMENT, WHEN THE INSTRUMENT WAS PULLED BACK THE CLIP TORE THE ARTERY. AS A RESULT THE CASE CONVERTED TO AN OPEN PROCEDURE.

ROSA Robotic Surgery — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT DURING A SURGERY, A SOFTWARE FAILURE WAS DETECTED. A COMMUNICATION ERROR HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED. A SURGERY DELAY HAS BEEN REPORTED BETWEEN 1 HOUR AND 90 MINUTES.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI CHOLECYSTECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE ELECTROSURGICAL UNIT (ESU) MISFIRED AND THE PATIENT SUSTAINED AN EXTERNAL BURN. SPECIFIC DETAILS REGARDING THE BURN WERE NOT PROVIDED. ON THE SAME DAY THE EVENT OCCURRED, AN INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) FIELD SERVICE ENGINEER (FSE) PERFORMED A FIELD EVALUATION AT THE SITE. THE FSE EVALUATED THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM AND WAS UNABLE TO REPRODUCE THE REPORTED ISSUE. THE FSE TESTED THE SYSTEM USING THE ORIGINAL MONOPOLAR CABLE AND GROUNDING PAD USED DURING THE REPORTED EVENT. NO ISSUES WERE FOUND WITH THE ENERGY PEDAL ON THE SURGEON SIDE CONSOLE (SSC). THE FSE WAS ABLE TO SIMULATE CAUTERY ON THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM USING A SPONGE SOAKED IN SALT WATER. THE FSE ALSO VERIFIED THAT WITH THE DA VINCI INSTRUMENT REMOVED OR WITH THE HEAD SENSOR BLOCKED, THE SSC WOULD NOT ACTIVATE THE ESU. THE FSE REVIEWED SITE'S SYSTEM ERROR LOGS. NO ERRORS RELATED TO THE SSC AND PERSONALITY MODULE ENERGY DEVICE (PMED) WHERE THE ESU IS PLUGGED INTO WERE FOUND. THE FSE THEN TESTED THE SYSTEM AND VERIFIED THAT IT WAS READY FOR USE. ON (B)(4) 2014, ISI CONTACTED THE ISI CLINICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE (CSR) WHO WAS NOT PRESENT DURING T

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2014, THE SURGEON NOTICED A SLIGHT HOLE IN THE PATIENT'S BLADDER. ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT, THE SURGERY LASTED ABOUT 1 HOUR AND 40 MINUTES. THE PATIENT WAS READMITTED ON (B)(6) 2014 AND WAS FOUND TO HAVE A PELVIC ABSCESS. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE INITIAL REPORTER AND OBTAINED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT. THE INITIAL REPORTER WAS PRESENT DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE AND NO MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. A FEW DAYS AFTER THE DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED, THE PATIENT RETURNED TO THE HOSPITAL AND WAS TREATED WITH ANTIBIOTICS. THE PATIENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE A PELVIC ABSCESS, HIGH FEVER, AND AN ELEVATED WHITE BLOOD CELL (WBC) COUNT. NO ADDITIONAL POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED. ON (B)(4) 2014, ISI CONTACTED THE SITE'S DIRECTOR OF SURGICAL SERVICES. ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTOR OF SURGICAL SERVICES, THE BLADDER INJURY WAS CAUSED BY SURGEON ERROR AND WAS SUCCESSFULLY REPAIRED BY THE SURGEON USING 2-3 STITCHES DURING THE DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROC

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER UNDERGOING A DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT FROM THE SURGEON WHO PERFORMED THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE. ACCORDING TO THE SURGEON, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A DA VINCI SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY PROCEDURE ON (B)(6) 2014. ON (B)(6) 2014, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED SYMPTOMS OF A POST-SURGICAL LEAK. THE PATIENT HAD A SMALL LEAK NEAR THE GASTROESOPHAGEAL (GE) JUNCTION, PRESUMABLY FROM THE STAPLE LINE. THE SURGEON INDICATED THAT INITIALLY IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE PATIENT HAD AN INFECTED HEMATOMA. PERCUTANEOUS DRAINS WERE PLACED BY RADIOLOGY TO RESOLVE THE ABDOMINAL FLUID COLLECTIONS. AFTER THE PERCUTANEOUS DRAINS WERE REMOVED, THE ISSUE RECURRED. ON (B)(6) 2014 THE PATIENT UNDERWENT LAPAROSCOPIC EXPLORATION AND DRAIN PLACEMENT; HOWEVER, THE LEAK WAS NOT LOCATED. LATER IN THE PATIENT'S COURSE SHE UNDERWENT A PROCEDURE TO HAVE A STENT PLACED TO COVER THE LEAK FROM INSIDE OF THE STOMACH. ACCORDING TO THE SURGEON, AS OF (B)(6) 2014, THE PATIENT WAS IN THE HOSPITAL AND IN STABLE CONDITION. THE SURGEON INDICATED THAT THE

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE ASSISTING SURGEON ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE A NEEDLE THROUGH A LAPAROSCOPIC ASSIST PORT AND THE NEEDLE WAS LOST. AFTER THE VAGINAL CUFF WAS CLOSED, THE ROBOT WAS UNDOCKED FROM THE PATIENT. THE NEEDLE WAS FOUND IN THE ABDOMINAL WALL AFTER AN X-RAY WAS PERFORMED. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT AND OBTAINED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT. THE INITIAL REPORTER WAS PRESENT DURING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE. TOWARDS THE END OF THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE WHILE THE SURGEON WAS CLOSING THE VAGINAL CUFF, THE ASSISTING SURGEON ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE A NEEDLE THROUGH A LAPAROSCOPIC ASSIST PORT USING AN UNIDENTIFIED NON-ISI LAPAROSCOPIC INSTRUMENT AND WITHOUT DIRECT VISUALIZATION. THE INITIAL REPORTER STATED THAT THE LAPAROSCOPIC ASSIST PORT WAS ACTUALLY A DA VINCI PORT BUT WAS SOLELY USED AS A LAPAROSCOPIC ASSIST PORT BY THE SURGICAL STAFF. THE INITIAL REPORTER INDICATED THAT THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM WAS NEVER DOCKED TO THE LAPAROSCOPIC ASSIST PORT INVOLVED WITH THIS COMPLAINT. AFTER THE ASSISTING SURGEON REMOVED THE LAPAROSCOPIC INSTRUMENT FROM T

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A SINGLE-SITE DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT'S URETER WAS TRANSECTED. REPORTEDLY, NO MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM, INSTRUMENTS AND/OR ACCESSORIES OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THE SURGEON MADE THE DECISION TO COMPLETE THE PLANNED PROCEDURE USING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM. A UROLOGIST WAS CONSULTED TO REPAIR THE DEFECT TO THE PATIENT'S URETER. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE ISI CLINICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE (CSR) WHO REPORTED THIS COMPLAINT. ACCORDING TO THE CSR, HE WAS PRESENT DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THE DAMAGE TO THE PATIENT'S URETER WAS IDENTIFIED IMMEDIATELY AND HE HEARD THE SURGEON COMMENT THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE PATIENT'S URETER OCCURRED BECAUSE THE PATIENT HAD AN UNUSUAL ANATOMY. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ROBOTICS PROCEDURE THE DECISION WAS MADE TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE TO THE PATIENT'S URETER USING OPEN SURGICAL TECHNIQUES. THE CSR INDICATED THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THE OPEN SURGICAL PROCEDURE.

ROSA Robotic Surgery — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT DURING A SURGERY, THE PC WAS NON-FUNCTIONAL. NO PATIENT IMPACT WAS REPORTED. A SURGERY DELAY HAS BEEN REPORTED OF 40 MINUTES.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MY GYNECOLOGIST RECOMMENDED THE DA VINCI TO ME. SHE SAID IT WAS THE WAY TO GO. ON (B)(6) 2014, I HAD MY PLANNED SURGERY BUT I NEVER RECOVERED. I WAS NAUSEATED THE FIRST WEEK ((B)(6) BACK TO WORK, SO I HAD CALLED AND ASKED FOR SOMETHING TO CONTROL THE NAUSEA. I HAD NO BLADDER CONTROL BEGINNING (B)(6). I HAD A WETTING ACCIDENT AT WORK. I THOUGHT I HAD A BAD UTI. I KEPT CALLING MY DR'S OFFICE AND FINALLY GOT IN TO SEE HER AND SHE REFERRED ME THE SAME DAY TO A UROLOGIST. I HAD TO WEAR ADULT DIAPERS SINCE (B)(6). ON (B)(6) 2014 MET WITH A UROLOGIST ON A FRIDAY, AND HE TOLD ME THAT HE NEEDED TO SEE ME IN THE OPERATING ROOM ON THE FOLLOWING MONDAY TO PLACE A STENT IN. THE RIGHT URETER HAD STOPPED WORKING. ON (B)(6) 2014 THE STENT WAS REMOVED. SIX DAYS LATER, (B)(6) 2014, I FELL ILL AT WORK. MY STOMACH HAD SWELLED AND I COULD HEAR WATER GUSHING THROUGH MY STOMACH. I CALLED MY DOCTOR. HE SAID GO GET MRI AT THE HOSPITAL AND BRING HIM THE DVD. I WAS IN HIS OFFICE AT 1:30 AND HE SAID I NEED TO SEE YOU IN THE OPERATING ROOM AT 2:00. I HAD FLUID BACKING UP IN THE RIGHT KIDNEY. ON (B)(6), DR (B)(6) REPLACED THE STENT. ON (B)(6) 2014, I WENT TO (B)(6) FOR A SECOND OPINION. THE DOCTOR THERE SAID "Y

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT AS A RESULT OF UNDERGOING A DA VINCI-ASSISTED HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT CLAIMED THAT HER RIGHT URETER WAS BURNED, NICKED, OR CUT. IN RELATION TO THE REPORTED EVENT, ON 01/07/2016, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) RECEIVED FDA VOLUNTARY REPORT MW5058544 WITH THE FOLLOWING EVENT DESCRIPTION: MY GYNECOLOGIST RECOMMENDED THE DA VINCI TO ME. SHE SAID IT WAS THE WAY TO GO. ON (B)(6) 2014, I HAD MY PLANNED SURGERY BUT NEVER RECOVERED. I WAS NAUSEATED THE FIRST WEEK (B)(6) BACK TO WORK, SO I HAD CALLED AND ASKED FOR SOMETHING TO CONTROL THE NAUSEA. I HAD NO BLADDER CONTROL BEGINNING (B)(6) . I HAD A WETTING ACCIDENT AT WORK. I THOUGHT I HAD A BAD UTI. I KEPT CALLING MY DR'S OFFICE AND FINALLY GOT IN TO SEE HER AND SHE REFERRED ME THE SAME DAY TO A UROLOGIST. I HAD TO WEAR ADULT DIAPERS SINCE (B)(6). ON (B)(6) 2014 MET WITH A UROLOGIST ON A FRIDAY, AND HE TOLD ME THAT HE NEEDED TO SEE ME IN THE OPERATING ROOM ON THE FOLLOWING MONDAY TO PLACE A STENT IN. THE RIGHT URETER HAD STOPPED WORKING. ON (B)(6) 2014 THE STENT WAS REMOVED. SIX DAYS LATER, (B)(6), I FELL ILL AT WORK. MY STOMACH HAD SWELLED AND I COULD HEAR WATER GUSHING THROUGH MY STOMACH. I CALLED MY DOCTOR

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI LEFT SALPINGO-OOPHORECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT SUSTAINED A BOWEL INJURY THAT THE SURGEON FELT WAS LIKELY DUE TO A THERMAL ISSUE. ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT THE PATIENT WAS STILL IN THE HOSPITAL, HAD ENDED UP DEVELOPING AN ABSCESS, AND RECEIVED A COLOSTOMY. THE PATIENT'S CONDITION WAS REPORTEDLY IMPROVING. ON (B)(64 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE SURGEON INVOLVED WITH THIS COMPLAINT AND OBTAINED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT. THE SURGEON DESCRIBED THE THERMAL BOWEL INJURY AS BEING 1 CM IN SIZE AND LOCATED IN THE SIGMOID COLON. ACCORDING TO THE SURGEON, NO INAPPROPRIATE CONTACT WITH ENERGIZED INSTRUMENTS WHILE ACTIVATED WAS OBSERVED DURING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE. IN ADDITION, THE BOWEL INJURY WAS NOT SEEN OR NOTICED INTRA-OPERATIVELY. THE SURGEON DENIED THAT ANY EVIDENCE OF ARCING OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FROM AN INSTRUMENT WAS OBSERVED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. TEN DAYS POST-OPERATIVELY, THE PATIENT WAS READMITTED FOR COMPLAINTS OF PAIN AND A CT-SCAN WAS PERFORMED. THE PATIENT'S BOWEL INJURY WAS SURGICALLY REPAIRED. DETAILS OF THE SURGICAL REPAIR WERE NOT PROVIDED.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI RIGHT HEMICOLECTOMY PROCEDURE, AFTER THE PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT AT THE PATIENT SIDE CART INSTALLED AN ENDOWRIST INSTRUMENT, THE SURGEON WAS UNAWARE THAT HE HAD CONTROL OF THE INSTALLED INSTRUMENT AS HE WAS UNABLE TO VIEW THE INSTRUMENT THROUGH THE HIGH RESOLUTION STEREO VIEWER ON THE SURGEON SIDE CART BECAUSE THE ENDOSCOPE WAS NOT COMPLETELY INSERTED INTO THE PATIENT. AFTER THE SURGEON LOCATED THE INSTRUMENT, HE NOTED THAT HE HAD CREATED A SMALL INCISION. THE SURGEON REPAIRED THE DEFECT WITH SUTURES. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE ISI CLINICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE (CSR) WHO REPORTED THIS COMPLAINT. ACCORDING TO THE CSR, SHE WAS PRESENT DURING SET-UP OF THE SYSTEM; HOWEVER, SHE DID NOT WITNESS THE INJURY TO THE PATIENT AS SHE LEFT THE OR. THE CSR INDICATED THAT UPON HER RETURN TO THE OPERATING ROOM, SHE OBSERVED THAT THE SURGEON WAS TRYING TO LOCATE THE TIPS OF THE INSTALLED INSTRUMENTS AND AFTER THE SURGEON LOCATED THE TIPS OF THE INSTRUMENTS SHE OVERHEARD THE SURGEON STATE THAT HE HAD CREATED A HOLE IN THE PATIENT'S DUODENUM. THE SURGEON USED THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM TO REPAIR THE DEFECT USING SUTURES. THE CSR

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT 4 HOURS POST A DA VINCI SINGLE SITE HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT REPORTED THAT SHE WAS NOT FEELING WELL AND PASSED OUT. A CT SCAN PERFORMED ON THE PATIENT SHOWED BLOOD IN HER ABDOMEN. THE PATIENT WAS RETURNED TO THE OPERATING ROOM AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE PATIENT WAS BLEEDING FROM HER LEFT UTERINE ARTERY. REPORTEDLY, THE PATIENT'S BLEEDING WAS CONTROLLED AND THE PATIENT IS RECOVERING FINE. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE ISI CLINICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE (CSR) WHO REPORTED THIS COMPLAINT. ACCORDING TO THE CSR HE WAS PRESENT DURING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE AND THAT DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE, HE DID NOT OBSERVE ANY MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM, INSTRUMENTS AND/OR ACCESSORIES. THE CSR INDICATED THAT TOWARDS THE END OF THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE, WHILE THE SURGEON WAS CLOSING THE PATIENT'S VAGINAL CUFF, INSUFFLATION WAS LOST. AT THAT TIME THE SURGEON MADE THE DECISION TO COMPLETE THE CLOSURE OF THE PATIENT'S VAGINAL CUFF VAGINALLY. THE LOSS OF INSUFFLATION WAS RELATED TO A THIRD PARTY DEVICE AND NOT TO THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM, INSTRUMENTS OR ACCESSORIES. AT THE END OF THE PROCEDURE, THE SURGICAL A

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT POST A DA VINCI MYOMECTOMY PROCEDURE PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2014, THE PATIENT WAS RE-ADMITTED INTO THE HOSPITAL DUE TO DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS (DVT) AND A PULMONARY EMBOLISM. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE ISI CLINICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE (CSR) WHO REPORTED THIS COMPLAINT. ACCORDING TO THE CSR SHE WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THE PATIENT'S ROBOTIC PROCEDURE; HOWEVER, ANOTHER ISI CSR WAS PRESENT AND ACCORDING TO THAT CSR, NO MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM, INSTRUMENTS, AND/OR ACCESSORIES OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THE REPORTING CSR INDICATED THAT SHE SPOKE TO THE SURGEON WHO PERFORMED THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. ACCORDING TO THE SURGEON, THE PATIENT'S DA VINCI MYOMECTOMY PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED AND TOOK 3 HOURS. THE SURGEON STRUGGLED TO LOCATE THE PATIENT'S MYOMA DUE TO INACCURATE MRI RESULTS, CAUSING THE SURGEON TO CREATE THE HYSTEROTOMY IN AN AREA THAT WAS NOT IDEAL FOR ACCESSING THE PATIENT'S MYOMA, WHICH RESULTED IN A DELAY DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THERE WAS A PROCTOR IN THE OR DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE TO ASSIST WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MRI. THE CSR WAS TOLD BY THE SURGEON THAT THE DA VINCI SURGICAL S

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) RECEIVED AN UF/IMPORTER REPORT (B)(4), WITH THE FOLLOWING EVENT DESCRIPTION: THE SURGEON ASKED FOR A UROLOGY CONSULT DUE TO A POSSIBLE THERMAL INJURY TO A URETER. A SECOND PHYSICIAN CAME IN AND CONFIRMED THERE WAS A URETERAL INJURY. NO FURTHER CLINICAL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ABOUT THE EVENT.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT SUSTAINED A COMMON BILE DUCT INJURY. NO OTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT WAS PROVIDED.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) RECEIVED (B)(4), WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: DURING ROBOTIC LYMPH NODE DISSECTION, THE PHYSICIAN CUT THE LEFT URETER. THE UROLOGIST ON CALL FIXED THE URETER FOLLOWING ORIGINAL PROCEDURE ROBOTICALLY. NO FURTHER CLINICAL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED. ISI CONTACTED THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT AND OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: THE SURGEON WAS DISSECTING THE GOOD PERITONEUM AND SKELETONIZING THE NODAL BUNDLE WHEN THE INJURY OCCURRED TO A PATIENT. IT IS UNKNOWN HOW LONG THE PROCEDURE WAS IN PROGRESS WHEN THE INJURY OCCURRED TO THE PATIENT. THE INITIAL REPORTER WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE SURGEON'S BELIEF AS TO WHAT CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE URETERAL INJURY. THE UROLOGIST USED 4 LATERAL STITCHES TO REPAIR THE INJURY. THE PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE HOSPITAL ON (B)(6) 2012. THE PATIENT HAS NOT RETURNED BACK TO THE HOSPITAL DUE TO THE REPORTED INJURY. THE INITIAL REPORTER WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE ISI ANY FURTHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS CASE.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT POST A DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED VAGINAL CUFF DEHISCENCE REQUIRING THE PATIENT TO UNDERGO AN ADDITIONAL SURGICAL PROCEDURE ON (B)(6) 2014 TO REPAIR HER VAGINAL CUFF. REPORTEDLY, REPAIR OF THE PATIENT'S VAGINAL CUFF WAS PERFORMED AT ANOTHER HOSPITAL. THE DATE OF THE DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE REPORTING HOSPITAL. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) FOLLOWED UP WITH THE NURSE AT THE HOSPITAL WHO REPORTED THIS INCIDENT TO ISI'S CLINICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE (CSR). ACCORDING TO THE NURSE, THE PATIENT PRESENTED WITH SYMPTOMS OF VAGINAL CUFF DEHISCENCE AT THE HOSPITAL ON (B)(6) 2014. THE PATIENT'S VAGINAL CUFF WAS REPAIRED VAGINALLY. THE AFFECTED AREA WAS SUTURED. THE NURSE INDICATED THAT THE SURGEON WHO REPAIRED THE PATIENT'S VAGINAL CUFF DID NOT INDICATED WHAT CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE ISSUE. THE NURSE DID NOT KNOW WHAT DATE THE PATIENT UNDERWENT THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THE PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE HOSPITAL. NO OTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT'S BOWEL WAS PUNCTURED WHILE ADVANCING THE MONOPOLAR CURVED SCISSORS (MCS) INSTRUMENT INTO THE PATIENT. REPORTEDLY, THE AFFECTED AREA WAS REPAIRED. ON (B)(4) 2014 INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE SURGEON WHO PERFORMED THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. ACCORDING TO THE SURGEON THE PATIENT'S BOWEL WAS NOT PENETRATED; HOWEVER, THE SEROSA WAS DAMAGED. THE DEFECT WAS REPAIRED INTRA-OPERATIVELY WITH THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM. THE AFFECTED AREA WAS SUTURED AND NO ADDITIONAL SURGICAL PROCEDURE WAS REQUIRED. THE SURGEON INDICATED THAT THE BEDSIDE ASSISTANT WAS PERFORMING ANOTHER TASK AND WAS NOT PAYING ATTENTION WHILE THE MCS INSTRUMENT WAS BEING ADVANCED INTO THE PATIENT, THUS CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE PATIENT'S SEROSA. ACCORDING TO THE SURGEON, THERE WAS NO MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM, MCS INSTRUMENT OR ACCESSORIES THAT CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE REPORTED EVENT AND IT IS HIS BELIEF THAT THE DEFECT TO THE PATIENT'S SEROSA WAS USE ERROR RELATED. THE PLANNED SURGICAL PROCEDURE WAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED AND THE PATIENT RECOVERED WELL. THE SURGEON ALSO INDICATED THAT ONE WEEK POST THE SURGICAL PROCEDU

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI BENIGN HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT'S BLADDER WAS PERFORATED. REPORTEDLY, THE DAMAGE TO THE PATIENT'S BLADDER WAS UNRELATED TO THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM. THE PATIENT'S BLADDER WAS REPAIRED USING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM. ON (B)(6) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT. THE INITIAL REPORTER WAS PRESENT DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER THE SURGEON HAD DIFFICULTY DELINEATING THE PATIENT'S TISSUE PLANES AND WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PERFORM THE COLPOTOMY PORTION OF THE HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE USING A MONOPOLAR CURVED SCISSORS (MCS) INSTRUMENT, THE SURGEON INADVERTENTLY PERFORATED THE PATIENT'S BLADDER WHILE CAUTERY ENERGY WAS ACTIVATED. THE DAMAGE TO THE PATIENT'S BLADDER WAS IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED BY THE SURGEON, AS THE SURGEON OBSERVED THAT THE INSTALLED CATHETER WAS VISIBLE. THE SURGEON REPAIRED THE DEFECT TO THE PATIENT'S BLADDER LAPAROSCOPICALLY USING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM. THE AFFECTED AREA WAS SUTURED. AFTER THE 1ST REPAIR WAS COMPLETED, THE SURGEON OBSERVED LEAKAGE FROM THE REPAIRED AREA. THE SURGEON PERFORMED A 2ND REPAIR USING THE DA VINCI SURGI

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) RECEIVED VOLUNTARY REPORT (B)(4) WITH THE FOLLOWING EVENT DESCRIPTION: I HAD MY PROSTATE REMOVED THE DA VINCI ROBOT AND DURING MY SURGERY, MY SURGEON ATTEMPTED TO FUSE TOGETHER SOME BLOOD VESSELS AND THE ROBOT FAILED TO FUSE SOME OF MY BLOOD VESSELS TOGETHER THUS CAUSING ME TO BLEED INTERNALLY. INSTEAD OF BEING IN THE HOSPITAL ONE NIGHT, I WAS IN THE HOSPITAL FOR OVER THIRTY DAYS. ALSO, ONE OF MY SURGEON'S INTERNS TOLD ME THAT WHEN MY SURGEON WAS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE THE ROBOT FROM MY BODY THAT THE ROBOT STARTED UP ON ITS OWN AND DID CUT OTHER BLOOD VEINS. NO WHERE IN MY MEDICAL RECORDS WAS ANY OF WHAT HAPPENED TO ME WAS IN THE MEDICAL RECORDS THAT I OBTAINED FROM THE HOSPITAL. THE HOSPITAL HAD TO GIVE ME OVER 8 PINTS OF BLOOD AND I HAD TO STAY IN THE HOSPITAL FOR OVER 30 DAYS. THE OPERATION USING THE DA VINCI ROBOT ALMOST CAUSED ME THE LOSS OF MY LIFE AND I AM NOW BEING TREATED FOR SEVERE ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION OVER WHAT HAPPENED TO ME WHILE I WAS OPERATED ON VIA DA VINCI ROBOT. NONE OF WHAT I HAVE SAID WAS REPORTED ON ANY MEDICAL RECORDS THAT I PAID TO GET. MY SURGEON AND THE HOSPITAL COVERED UP WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO ME WHEN I HA

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT PRIOR TO STARTING A DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE, A NURSE INJURED HER HAND WHILE ATTEMPTING TO MOVE THE PATIENT SIDE CART (PSC). ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT, THE PSC WAS ABOUT 1 INCH FROM THE WALL AND WAS IN NEUTRAL WHEN THE NURSE GRABBED THE HANDLE OF THE PSC IN AN AWKWARD POSITION. AT THAT SAME TIME, A SURGICAL TECHNICIAN SWITCHED THE PSC FROM NEUTRAL TO DRIVE. AT THAT POINT, THE PSC REPORTEDLY LURCHED BACKWARDS AND CRUSHED THE NURSE'S HAND BETWEEN THE PSC AND WALL. THE NURSE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT SHE ACTIVATED THE HAND CONTROL OF THE PSC. THE NURSE HAD TO GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM (ER) AND AN X-RAY WAS PERFORMED. NO BONE FRACTURES WERE FOUND. THE NURSE WAS FOUND TO HAVE SOFT TISSUE DAMAGE AND SWELLING. NO BRUISING WAS OBSERVED. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE INITIAL REPORTER. THE INITIAL REPORTER STATED FROM WHAT HE RECALLS, THE NURSE WAS GIVEN A BAG OF ICE FROM THE ER TO TREAT THE SWELLING. NO DRESSINGS OR BANDAGES WERE GIVEN TO TREAT THE NURSE. AT THIS TIME, THE INITIAL REPORTER STATED THAT THE NURSE IS BACK AT WORK AND IS DOING FINE. ON (B)(4) 2014, ISI ALSO CONTACTED THE FIELD SERVICE ENGINEER (FSE). ACC

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC. (ISI) REVIEWED A JOURNAL ARTICLE BY RUPA SEETHARAMAIAH ET AL. TITLED ROBOTIC REPAIR OF GIANT PARAESOPHAGEL HERNIAS. ACCORDING TO THE REPORTED ARTICLE, A (B)(6) HEALTHY WOMAN CAME TO THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT WITH SHORTNESS OF BREATH. PEH WAS DIAGNOSED, AND THE PATIENT WAS TAKEN TO THE OPERATING ROOM. DURING THE PROCEDURE, A GPEH WAS FOUND AND THE STOMACH WAS STRONGLY ADHERED TO BOTH THE RIGHT AND LEFT CRUS. DURING THE DISSECTION, A PLEURAL INJURY WAS NOTICED. REDUCTION WAS COMPLETED, THE PLEURAL INJURY WAS REPAIRED WITH NO. 3-0 VICRYL (ETHICON), AND THE HERNIA WAS CLOSED WITH NONABSORBABLE SUTURE. NO PLEURAL TUBE WAS USED. A BIOLOGICAL MESH WAS PLACED AND A NISSEN FUNDOPLICATION PERFORMED. THE TOTAL PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED IN 258 MINUTES, AND THE PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED 3 DAYS LATER. THE HOSPITAL NAME AND THE DA VINCI SERIAL NUMBER INVOLVED WITH THIS PATIENT WAS NOT PROVIDED IN THE ARTICLE.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI NISSEN FUNDOPLICATION PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT'S STOMACH WAS PUNCTURED. THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED. ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT MULTIPLE PROCEDURES FOR REPAIR OF THE REPORTED INJURY.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI PROSTATECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE SURGEON COULD NOT GET THE HARMONIC ACE CURVED SHEARS INSTRUMENT OR MARYLAND BIPOLAR FORCEPS INSTRUMENT TO ENERGIZE. DUE TO THE REPORTED ISSUE, THE INITIAL REPORTER INDICATED THAT THE PATIENT LOST 1300 CC OF BLOOD. ON (B)(4) 2014, AN INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) FIELD SERVICE ENGINEER (FSE) CONTACTED THE SITE'S ROBOTICS COORDINATOR. ACCORDING TO THE ROBOTICS COORDINATOR, THE HOSPITAL HAD LOST POWER TO THE ENTIRE OR IN THE MORNING AND THE SURGICAL STAFF HAD UNPLUGGED AND RE-PLUGGED THE CABLES IN ORDER TO GET THEIR SYSTEMS ALL TURNED BACK ON FOR THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE. DURING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE, THE SURGEON ATTEMPTED TO ACTIVATE THE HARMONIC ACE CURVED SHEARS INSTRUMENT AND MARYLAND BIPOLAR FORCEPS INSTRUMENT BUT NOTICED THAT THEY WOULD NOT WORK. AFTER THE ROBOTICS COORDINATOR UNPLUGGED AND RE-PLUGGED THE INSTRUMENT CABLES LEADING TO THE ELECTROSURGICAL UNIT (ESU), THE INSTRUMENTS BEGAN TO WORK PROPERLY FOR THE REST OF THE PROCEDURE. LATER THAT SAME DAY, THE FSE PERFORMED A FIELD EVALUATION AT THE SITE. THE FSE CHECKED THE SENSOR STATUS FOR FOOT PEDAL ACTIVATION ON THE SYSTEM WHICH PASSED. THE

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: AS PART OF A LEGAL DISPUTE, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) RECEIVED INFORMATION REGARDING A PATIENT WHO UNDERWENT A DA VINCI PROSTATECTOMY ON AN UNSPECIFIED DATE. ISI WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE OPERATIVE REPORT OR ANY MEDICAL RECORDS. ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL DOCUMENT PROVIDED, THE PATIENT HAD PROSTATE SURGERY. DURING SURGERY, THE MACHINE BROKE DOWN. HE SPENT 12 DAYS IN THE HOSPITAL. IN ADDITION, THE LEGAL DOCUMENT NOTED THE PATIENT INJURY AS COMPARTMENT SYNDROME.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC. (ISI) REVIEWED A JOURNAL ARTICLE BY TAKAHRIO YASUI ET AL TITLED, IMPACT OF PROSTATE WEIGHT ON PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES OF ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY WITH A POSTERIOR APPROACH TO THE SEMINAL VESICLE. ACCORDING TO THE REPORTED ARTICLE, FIVE PATIENTS EXPERIENCED INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS, INCLUDING 3 PATIENTS WITH POSTERIOR BLADDER INJURY, 1 PATIENT WITH RECTAL INJURY, AND 1 PATIENT WITH ILEUM INJURY. IN ALL THESE PATIENTS, THE INJURY WAS REPAIRED DURING A ROBOTIC OPERATION. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENTS. THE HOSPITALS NAME, DA VINCI SYSTEM SERIAL NUMBERS AND TYPE OF PROCEDURES INVOLVED WITH ALL FIVE COMPLAINTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ARTICLE.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF A DA VINCI SIGMOID COLECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE SUSTAINED AN ANASTOMOTIC LEAK. ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT, THE SURGEON BELIEVES THE INFERIOR MESENTERIC ARTERY (IMA) WAS NOT FULLY SEALED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE AND THEREFORE A LEAK OCCURRED. ON (B)(4) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE INITIAL REPORTER AND OBTAINED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT. THE INITIAL REPORTER WAS PRESENT DURING THE DA VINCI SIGMOID COLECTOMY PROCEDURE. HE DID NOT OBSERVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE DA VINCI SYSTEM, AN INSTRUMENT, OR AN ACCESSORY DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THE INITIAL REPORTER ALSO STATED THAT HE DID NOT WITNESS ANY INTRA-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS OTHER THAN SLIGHT BLEEDING THAT THE SURGEON WAS ABLE TO CONTROL AND SEAL WITHOUT ANY ISSUES. THE INITIAL REPORTER DID NOT KNOW THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PATIENT. ON (B)(4) 2014, ISI ALSO CONTACTED THE SURGEON WHO PERFORMED THE DA VINCI SIGMOID COLECTOMY PROCEDURE. THE SURGEON INDICATED THAT POST-OPERATIVELY, THE PATIENT DEVELOPED A LARGE HEMATOMA IN THE MESENTERY THAT REQUIRED SURGICAL INTERVENTION FOR CLOT EVACUATION. THE SUR

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI ENDOMETRIOSIS RESECTION PROCEDURE, PATIENT SIDE MANIPULATOR 3 (PSM3) HAD UNINTENDED MOVEMENT AND THE PATIENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE SUSTAINED TWO 1 PUNCTURE WOUNDS TO THE SIGMOID COLON. THE PSM IS AN INSTRUMENT ARM LOCATED ON THE PATIENT SIDE CART (PSC) THAT PROVIDES STERILE INTERFACE FOR THE ENDOWRIST INSTRUMENT. ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT, THE SURGEON STATED THAT THE CLUTCH BUTTON FROM PSM3 HAD BEEN PUSHED TO MOVE THE INSTRUMENT TO THE END OF THE CANNULA TIP. AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT, IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT INSTRUMENT WAS INSTALLED ON PSM3. AT AN UNSPECIFIED TIME DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE, THE SURGEON STATED THAT PSM3 WENT SPASTIC. THE SURGEON THEN REMOVED THE INSTRUMENT INSTALLED ON PSM3 AND FOUND TWO PUNCTURE WOUNDS TO THE SIGMOID COLON. THE SURGEON REPAIRED THE PUNCTURE WOUNDS AND INDICATED THAT THE PATIENT WAS DOING WELL. ON (B)(4) 2014, AN INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) FIELD SERVICE ENGINEER (FSE) PERFORMED A FIELD EVALUATION AT THE SITE. THE FSE TEST DROVE THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM AND VERIFIED THAT THE SYSTEM WAS READY FOR USE. HE WAS UNABLE TO REPLICATE THE REPORTED ISSUE WITH PSM3. ON (B)(4) 2014, ISI CONTACT

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ATTORNEYS HAVE ALLEGED THAT THEIR CLIENTS SUFFERED INJURIES ASSOCIATED WITH DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURES. THESE CLAIMS DO NOT INVOLVE DEATHS. THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE FIRST RECEIVED BY INTUITIVE SURGICAL DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF (B)(4) 2013 TO (B)(4) 2014. FOR THOSE CLAIMS WHERE PROCEDURE DATES ARE PROVIDED, THE DATES RANGE FROM (B)(6) 2004 THROUGH (B)(6) 2014.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI GASTRECTOMY SURGICAL PROCEDURE, IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT THE HARMONIC ACE INSERT WAS SUDDENLY BROKEN. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE CUSTOMER TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, THE CUSTOMER INDICATED THAT A FRAGMENT FELL INTO THE PATIENT AND IT WAS RETRIEVED DURING THE SAME PROCEDURE. AN X-RAY WAS PERFORMED AND NO FRAGMENTS WERE SEEN TO REMAIN IN THE PATIENT. THERE WAS NO PATIENT HARM, ADVERSE OUTCOME OR INJURY REPORTED.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ON (B)(6) 2014, THE REPORTER INFORMED INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) OF A PATIENT WHO REPORTEDLY EXPERIENCED A SIMILAR POST DA VINCI COURSE AS THE PATIENT WHO SUSTAINED NEURO-SOMATIC SYMPTOMS FOLLOWING A DA VINCI MYOMECTOMY PROCEDURE REPORTED IN MFR REPORT 2955842-2013-04307 (PATIENT IDENTIFIER (B)(6)). THE REPORTER WAS UNWILLING TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL DETAILS. THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION OF A MALFUNCTION WITH THE DA VINCI SYSTEM, INSTRUMENTS, AND/OR ACCESSORIES. THE PATIENT'S AGE/WEIGHT, DA VINCI SYSTEM SERIAL , PROCEDURE TYPE, EVENT DATE, AND POST DA VINCI COURSE DETAILS WERE NOT PROVIDED. ADDITIONAL ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO CONTACT THE REPORTER FOR MORE INFORMATION; HOWEVER, NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY WITH BILATERAL PELVIC AND PARA-AORTIC LYMPHADENECTOMY PROCEDURE FOR ENDOMETRIAL CANCER STAGING, THE PATIENT SUSTAINED A URETERAL INJURY. THERE WERE NO REPORTS THAT A MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SYSTEM, AN INSTRUMENT, OR AN ACCESSORY OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. ACCORDING TO THE CLINICAL FELLOW, THE DA VINCI FLUORESCENCE IMAGING VISION SYSTEM WAS BEING USED DURING AN INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) APPROVED RESEARCH PROTOCOL IN WHICH A PATIENT RECEIVED A CERVICAL INTERSTITIAL INJECTION OF INDOCYANINE GREEN (ICG) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENTINEL LYMPH NODE MAPPING. DURING DISSECTION OF A SENTINEL LYMPH NODE FROM THE LEFT PARA-AORTIC LYMPH NODE CHAIN AND WHILE THE SURGEON WAS OPERATING IN THE FLUORESCENCE IMAGING MODE, A 2MM THERMAL INJURY TO THE LEFT URETER AT THE LEVEL OF THE INFERIOR MESENTERIC ARTERY OCCURRED. THE CLINICAL FELLOW INDICATED THAT THE INJURY OCCURRED BECAUSE VISUALIZATION WAS POOR DUE TO BLEEDING (CONTAMINATING THE SURGICAL FIELD) AND BECAUSE THE LEFT URETER, WHICH HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN IDENTIFIED AND RETRACTED BY THE 3RD ARM, SLIPPED OUT FROM ITS RETRACTION INTO THE SURGICAL FIELD. AT THE TIME THE INJURY OCCUR

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF A DA VINCI SACROCOLPOPEXY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT PRESENTED WITH AN UNSPECIFIED SMALL BOWEL INJURY POST-OPERATIVELY. ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT, THERE WERE NO REPORTS FROM THE SURGICAL STAFF THAT ANY INTRA-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS OCCURRED DURING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE NO REPORTS THAT A MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SYSTEM, AN INSTRUMENT, OR AN ACCESSORY OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. ON (B)(6) 2014, THE PATIENT RETURNED TO THE HOSPITAL AND UNDERWENT AN EXPLORATORY LAPAROTOMY. DURING THE PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT UNDERWENT REPAIR OF THE SMALL BOWEL INJURY. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT WAS PROVIDED.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF A DA VINCI TOTAL COLECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE SUSTAINED A POSSIBLE THERMAL BURN TO THE SMALL BOWEL POST-OPERATIVELY. ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER OF THIS COMPLAINT, THE POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATION WAS IDENTIFIED ON POST-OPERATIVE DAY 11. ON (B)(6) 2015, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE ISI CLINICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE (CSR) AND OBTAINED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT. ACCORDING TO THE CSR, HE WAS PRESENT DURING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THERE WERE NO INTRA-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS OBSERVED AND NO REPORTS OF ANY ARCING OF ENERGY FROM AN INSTRUMENT. ON (B)(6) 2015, ISI CONTACTED THE SITE'S ROBOTICS COORDINATOR. SHE INDICATED THAT SHE WAS IN AND OUT OF THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THERE WERE NO REPORTS OF ANY INTRA-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS OR ISSUES WITH THE DA VINCI SYSTEM, INSTRUMENTS, OR ACCESSORIES. TO HER KNOWLEDGE, THE PATIENT WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE OR ON AN UNSPECIFIED DATE FOR REPAIR OF A POSSIBLE THERMAL INJURY TO THE SMALL BOWEL. THE ROBOTICS COORDINATOR DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE SUSPECTED CAUSE WAS FOR THE THERMAL INJURY. AFTER THE THERMAL INJURY WAS REPAIRED, THE PATIE

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, WHILE THE SURGEON WAS UTILIZING A MONOPOLAR CURVED SCISSORS INSTRUMENT AND A FENESTRATED BIPOLAR FORCEPS INSTRUMENT, THE PATIENT SUSTAINED A THERMAL INJURY TO HER RECTUM. THE SURGEON CONSULTED A GENERAL SURGEON TO EVALUATE THE DEFECT. AFTER EXAMINING THE PATIENT'S RECTUM, THE GENERAL SURGEON DETERMINED THAT THE AFFECTED AREA DID NOT REQUIRE ANY TREATMENT. THE PLANNED SURGICAL PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED. APPROXIMATELY 5 DAYS POST-OP AND DURING THE PATIENT'S HOSPITALIZATION, THE PATIENT COMPLAINED OF PAIN. EXAMINATION OF THE PATIENT FOUND THAT THE PATIENT HAD DEVELOPED A RECTAL CERVICAL FISTULA. ON (B)(6) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE SURGEON WHO PERFORMED THE DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE. ACCORDING TO THE SURGEON THE PATIENT UNDERWENT A DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE DUE TO FIBROIDS, MENORRHAGIA AND ANEMIA. THE PATIENT'S UTERUS WEIGHED 615 GRAMS AND WAS 20 WEEKS IN SIZE. THE SURGEON INDICATED THAT AFTER THE PATIENT'S UTERUS HAD BEEN MORCELLATED AND REMOVED, HE IDENTIFIED A WHITE SPOT ON THE PATIENT'S SIGMOID COLON THAT WAS CLOSE TO THE UTERINE CERVIX JUNCTION. WHILE THE GE

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF A DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT WAS SENT HOME AND THEN LATER PRESENTED WITH A POSSIBLE BOWEL INJURY. THERE WERE NO REPORTS THAT A MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SYSTEM, AN INSTRUMENT, OR AN ACCESSORY OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI OVARIAN CYSTECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT'S BOWEL WAS INJURED. ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL REPORTER, THE INSTRUMENTS WERE INSTALLED IN THE PATIENT WITH THE SURGEON AT THE PATIENT SIDE CONSOLE (PSC) UNDER SCOPE VISUALIZATION. WHEN THE SURGEON SAT DOWN AT THE SURGEON SIDE CONSOLE (SSC), SHE WAS UNABLE TO SEE THE SCISSORS INSTALLED ON PATIENT SIDE MANIPULATOR (PSM1) 1. THE SURGEON MOVED THE CAMERA TO LOOK FOR THE SCISSOR TIPS. THE INITIAL REPORTER INDICATED THAT THE SURGEON FOUND THAT THE SCISSORS HAD NICKED/PUNCTURED THE PATIENT'S BOWEL. THE INITIAL REPORTER ALSO INDICATED THAT THEY WERE COMPLETING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE AND ANOTHER SURGEON WAS GOING TO PERFORM THE BOWEL REPAIR USING THE DA VINCI SYSTEM. AT AN UNSPECIFIED TIME DURING THE EVENT, THE SURGICAL STAFF NOTICED THAT THE CANNULA ON PSM1 HAD BECOME DISCONNECTED.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ON 06/02/2016, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) BECAME AWARE OF THE (B)(4) BLOG TITLED, (B)(4). ACCORDING TO THE INTERNET BLOG, THE PATIENT ALLEGED THAT SHE EXPERIENCED MULTIPLE POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS AFTER UNDERGOING A DA VINCI-ASSISTED HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2014. THE INTERNET BLOG DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ALLEGATION THAT A MALFUNCTION OF A DA VINCI SYSTEM, INSTRUMENT, OR ACCESSORY OCCURRED OR CAUSED/CONTRIBUTED TO THE OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS. REFER TO THE FOLLOWING INTERNET LINK FOR ACCESS TO THE INTERNET BLOG: (B)(4). BASED ON THE INTERNET BLOG, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED: THE PATIENT INDICATED THAT SHE WAS SENT HOME THE SAME DAY AFTER UNDERGOING A DA VINCI-ASSISTED HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE. POST-OPERATIVELY, THE PATIENT CLAIMED THAT SHE EXPERIENCED BLADDER AND PELVIC PAIN. AFTER CONSULTING WITH HER SURGEON, THE PATIENT INDICATED THAT SHE WAS INSTRUCTED TO GO TO THE ER ON POST-OPERATIVE DAY 4 OR 5. WHILE IN URGENT CARE, THE PATIENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE A BLADDER INFECTION. SINCE UNDERGOING THE DA VINCI-ASSISTED SURGICAL PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT INDICATED THAT SHE HAS HAD MULTIPLE EXAMS AND RADIOLOGIC TESTS PERFORMED ON HER PELVIS AND BLADDER. A YEAR AND

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT'S RECTUM WAS DAMAGED AND AS A RESULT OF THE INJURY TO THE PATIENT, THE SURGEON MADE THE DECISION TO CONVERT THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE TO OPEN SURGICAL TECHNIQUES TO REPAIR AND COMPLETE THE PROCEDURE. REPORTEDLY, THE INJURY TO THE PATIENT WAS DUE TO THE PATIENT'S ANATOMY. THERE WAS NO REPORT OF A MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM, INSTRUMENTS OR ACCESSORIES. THE PATIENT HAD CANCER, WHICH MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE SURGEON TO DELINEATE THE SURGICAL PLANES. NO OTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: ON (B)(6) 2014, AN INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) SALES REPRESENTATIVE BECAME AWARE OF AN INJURY THAT OCCURRED DURING A DA VINCI RIGHT UPPER LOBECTOMY PROCEDURE THAT TOOK PLACE ON (B)(6) 2014 FROM A DOCTOR WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE CASE. THE DOCTOR INDICATED THAT THE SURGEON PERFORMING THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE ENCOUNTERED AN INJURY TO A BRANCH OF THE PULMONARY ARTERY, WHICH BLED UNCONTROLLABLY. THE DA VINCI PROCEDURE WAS CONVERTED TO AN OPEN SURGICAL PROCEDURE AND THE PATIENT WAS GIVEN AN EMERGENCY HEART AND LUNG BYPASS. THE PATIENT LOST >40 UNITS OF BLOOD AND WAS GIVEN A BLOOD TRANSFUSION. THE PATIENT ALSO DEVELOPED ABDOMINAL COMPARTMENT SYNDROME AND WAS REOPENED AT THE SAME PROCEDURE. NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AT THE TIME. ON (B)(6) 2014, ISI CONTACTED THE SITE'S RISK MANAGEMENT. THE RISK MANAGER INDICATED THAT THE PATIENT'S INJURY WAS NOT RELATED TO ANY ISSUES OR MALFUNCTIONS OF THE DA VINCI SYSTEM. SHE DECLINED TO PROVIDE ANY OTHER INFORMATION.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI SACROCOLPOPEXY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT'S ILIAC VESSEL WAS INJURED AND THE PATIENT EXPIRED.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A DA VINCI NEPHRECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE SURGEON NICKED AN UNSPECIFIED VESSEL RESULTING IN THE PATIENT RECEIVING A BLOOD TRANSFUSION. ON (B)(6) 2014, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE SITE'S ROBOTICS COORDINATOR. THE ROBOTICS COORDINATOR STATED THAT THE INJURY TO THE PATIENT'S VESSEL WAS DUE TO SURGEON ERROR. SHE STATED THAT NO MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SYSTEM, AN INSTRUMENT, OR AN ACCESSORY OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. ACCORDING TO THE ROBOTICS COORDINATOR, THE SURGEON REPAIRED THE VESSEL INJURY AND THE DA VINCI SURGICAL PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED. THE PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED HOME ON POST-OPERATIVE DAY 3 AND THERE WERE NO REPORTS OF ANY POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF A DA VINCI HYSTERECTOMY PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT RETURNED TO THE HOSPITAL WITH COMPLAINTS OF ABDOMINAL PAIN. THE PATIENT WAS EVALUATED IN AN EMERGENCY ROOM (ER), TREATED WITH AN ANTIBIOTIC, AND SENT HOME. ON (B)(4) 2013, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) CONTACTED THE CLINICAL SALES REPRESENTATIVE (CSR). THE CSR WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THERE WAS NO REPORT THAT A MALFUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SYSTEM, AN INSTRUMENT, OR AN ACCESSORY OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE. THE CSR STATED THAT AFTER THE EVENT OCCURRED, AN ISI FIELD SERVICE ENGINEER (FSE) PERFORMED A FIELD EVALUATION AT THE SITE ON AN UNSPECIFIED DATE. ACCORDING TO THE CSR, THE FSE AND THE SITE'S BIOMED DEPARTMENT EVALUATED THE DA VINCI SYSTEM INVOLVED WITH THIS COMPLAINT AND NO ISSUES WERE FOUND. THE CSR WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE DATE OF THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE INVOLVED WITH THIS COMPLAINT.