da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: REFER TO H10/H11 FOR FOLLOW-UP 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: REFER TO H10/H11 FOR FOLLOW-UP 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: REFER TO H10/H11 FOR FOLLOW-UP 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 INITIALLY REPORTED THAT AFTER UNDERGOING A DA VINCI-ASSISTED PULMONARY LOBECTOMY PROCEDURE, A FEMALE PATIENT IN HER 70'S HAD AN ULTRASONOGRAPHY PROCEDURE PERFORMED ON THE VEINS IN A LOWER LIMB, IN ADDITION TO A ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY PROCEDURE AS A RESULT OF ELEVATED LEVELS OF SOLUBLE FIBRIN AND D-DIMER IN HER POST-OPERATIVE DAY #1 BLOOD SAMPLING. DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS (DVT) WAS FOUND AND THE PATIENT WAS ALSO SUSPECTED TO HAVE A PULMONARY EMBOLISM. AS A RESULT, THE PATIENT WAS TREATED WITH ANTICOAGULANT THERAPY AND DISCHARGED ONE WEEK POST-OPERATIVELY. THE HOSPITAL COMMENTED THAT IT IS UNKNOWN IF THE POST-OPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ROBOTIC SURGERY. THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT A MALFUNCTION OF A DA VINCI SYSTEM, INSTRUMENT, OR ACCESSORY OCCURRED. ON 21-MAY-2020, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTED EVENT. THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE WAS RECORDED ON VIDEO. HOWEVER, THE VIDEO IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ISI TO REVIEW. NO MALFUNCTION OF A DA VINCI SYSTEM, INSTRUMENT, OR ACCESSORY OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE WHICH WAS COMPLETED ROBOTICALLY. THERE WERE NO CONVERSIONS TO TRADITIONAL LAPAROSCOPIC OR OP

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 INITIALLY REPORTED THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF A DA VINCI-ASSISTED PROSTATECTOMY PROCEDURE, A BURN INJURY TO THE SKIN ON THE PATIENT'S SACRUM WAS IDENTIFIED. ALTHOUGH THE BURN SEVERITY (DEGREE) WAS UNKNOWN, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PATIENT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY MEDICAL INTERVENTION DUE TO THE BURN INJURY. THE SURGEON/SITE DOES NOT BELIEVE AN INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) PRODUCT CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED BURN INJURY. THE CUSTOMER REPORTEDLY USES SINGLE-USE DUAL-BLADE NEUTRAL PLATES (GROUNDING PADS) FOR COAGULATION, PLACING IT ON LEFT LEG FROM ABOVE. ON 07-APR-2020, ISI FOLLOWED UP WITH THE CUSTOMER AND OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: THE SKIN INTEGRITY OF THE PATIENT WAS NORMAL. IT WAS NOT THIN OR FRAIL. THE PATIENT HAD NO PRE-EXISTING SKIN CONDITIONS. IT WAS CONFIRMED TO BE A BURN INJURY TO THE PATIENT'S SACRUM. IT WAS A 1ST-2ND DEGREE BURN. THE BURN INJURY WAS REPORTED TO BE "10X20SM, RECTANGULAR, RED, WITH BLISTERS. THE PATIENT RECEIVED LOCAL SKIN TREATMENT AND WOUND DRESSING. THE SURGEON BELIEVED THAT THE BURN INJURY WAS DUE TO ¿NOT PROPER ISOLATION OF THE OPERATING TABLE.¿ THE GROUNDING PAD WAS CORRECTLY PLACED ON THE PATIENT'S LEFT LEG. IT WAS INSPECTED BEFORE

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: REFER TO H10/H11 FOR FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THROUGH THE FILING OF A LAWSUIT THAT ALLEGEDLY ON OR ABOUT (B)(6) 2020, A MAKO TOTAL KNEE WITH TRIATHLON WAS IMPLANTED INTO THE PATIENT'S RIGHT KNEE USING PRODUCT/ROBOTIC ASSISTANCE, PINNING THE PRODUCT TO THE PATIENT'S FEMUR. IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT ON OR ABOUT (B)(6) 2020, THE PATIENT'S FEMUR BROKE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE PRODUCT AND IMPLANTATION, AND HE UNDERWENT SUBSEQUENT SURGERY AS A RESULT OF HIS INJURIES.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: REFER TO H10/H11 FOR FOLLOW-UP 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: REFER TO H10/H11 FOR FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION.

Senhance — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: THE COMPLAINANT, VAIDA NAUSEDIENE, REPORTED THAT ON DAY 4, THE PATIENT DEVELOPED FEVER, SIGNS OF PERITONITIS. THE ADVERSE EVENT WAS AN ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE. ON (B)(6) 2020, PATIENT WAS RE-OPERATED VIA LAPAROTOMY, DISRUPTION OF ANASTOMOSIS, LAVAGE AND DRAINAGE OF THE ABDOMEN, END COLOSTOMY. PATIENT WAS THEN TREATED IN ICU, THUS POSTOPERATIVE COURSE AND RECOVERY WAS LONGER DUE TO INFECTION OF THE LAPAROTOMY WOUND, WITH OBESITY AND CO-MORBIDITIES PRESENT. PATIENT RECOVERED AND WAS DISCHARGED FOR A 20-MARCH-2020 DATE OF RESOLUTION. THIS EVENT DID NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE U.S. THE EVENT OCCURRED IN (B)(6) HOSPITAL IN LITHUANIA. ADDITIONALLY, THIS EVENT OCCURRED ON 29-FEBRUARY-2020, AND ASENSUS SURGICAL WAS INTERNALLY MADE AWARE ON 16-AUGUST-2023.

ExcelsiusGPS — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT FOUR PEDIC/E SCREWS WERE NOT PLACED ACCORDING TO THE SCREW PLAN. INTRA-OPERATIVE IMAGING SHOWED THE SCREWS WERE PLACED MEDIALLY AND WERE OFF BY TWO VERTEBRAL LEVELS. THE SCREWS WERE REMOVED AND NEW ANTERIOR, POSTERIOR, AND LATERAL C­ ARM IMAGES WERE REGISTERED AND MERGED. USING THE EXCELSIUS GPS, THE SCREWS WERE CORRECTLY PLACED AT LS AND S1 ACCORDING TO THE INITIAL PLAN.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: REFER TO FOR FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MAKO ROBOTIC EQUIPMENT MADE INCORRECT POSTERIOR CHAMBER CUT DURING SURGERY. FDA SAFETY REPORT ID# (B)(4).

ExcelsiusGPS — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THE LEFT LS SCREW WAS PLACED LOW TO PLAN. THE SCREW WAS REPOSITIONED INTRA-OPERATIVELY TO A NEW TRAJECTORY USING FLUOROSCOPIC IMAGING. IMMEDIATELY POST-OPERATIVE THE PATIENT HAD LIMITED MOVEMENT TO THE LOWER LEG AND FOOT. 28 DAYS LATER, THE SURGEON REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT HAD STARTED TO RECOVER MOVEMENT AND BELIEVED THIS IMPROVEMENT WOULD CONTINUE.

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, DISSECTION OF THE VAGINAL STUMP WAS PERFORMED, AND TISSUE WAS DAMAGED. ON (B)(6) 2020, INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. (ISI) FOLLOWED UP WITH THE CUSTOMER AND OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE STUMP OF THE VAGINA WAS INJURED DURING THE PROCEDURE. THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE SURGEON¿S MISJUDGMENT. THE SURGEON CONFIRMED THAT ANOTHER STITCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED. IT IS UNKNOWN WHAT MEDICAL INTERVENTION WAS REQUIRED TO REPAIR THE VAGINAL STUMP. ADDITIONALLY, THE SURGEON STATED THAT THE EVENT DID NOT OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE DA VINCI SURGICAL SYSTEM MALFUNCTION. THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED AS PLANNED AND THE PATIENT HAS PROGRESSED WELL WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS.

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 VIA A GENERAL PHYSICIAN INQUIRY THAT AFTER A COMPLETED DA VINCI-ASSISTED GYNECOLOGY PROCEDURE, POSSIBLY ON (B)(6) 2019, PATIENT INJURY WAS REPORTED. THE PATIENT RETURNED TO THE HOSPITAL SIX TO SEVEN DAYS POST DA VINCI PROCEDURE, POSSIBLY ON (B)(6)2019, FOR WHAT WAS DESCRIBED AS ¿REPAIR¿ AS THERE WAS AN OBSERVED ¿TROCAR INJURY¿ AND ¿BOWEL NECROSIS¿. FURTHER DETAIL WAS UNKNOWN. THE PATIENT¿S CURRENT STATUS IS ALSO UNKNOWN.

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: WHILE USING THE MAZOR NAVIGATION / ROBOTIC SYSTEM LEFT SIDE SCREWS OF A SPINAL FUSION WERE IN PLACE. THE RIGHT SIDED SCREWS WERE MEDIAL DISPLACED AND REQUIRED RE POSITIONING. FDA SAFETY REPORT ID# (B)(4).

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: REFER TO H10/H11 FOR FOLLOW-UP 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: REFER TO H10/H11 FOR FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION.

ExcelsiusGPS — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: THE SYSTEM PLACED SCREWS AT LL AND L4 ACCURATELY, BUT L2 AND L3 WERE WAY OFF. ACCORDING TO THE LOCAL TEAM, THE SURVEILLANCE WAS FINE AND THE MERGE WAS ACCEPTABLE. THE PATIENT IS DOING WELL BUT HAD A SMALL DURAL SCRATCH WHICH WAS REPAIRED INTRA-OPERATIVELY WITH NO SERIOUS LONG-TERM EFFECT TO THE PATIENT.

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION REGARDING A GUIDANCE SYSTEM BEING USED DURING A SPINAL PROCEDURE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT ALL OF THE SCREWS WERE NOT TO PLAN. ALL OF THE LEFT SIDE SCREWS WERE IN THE SPINAL CANAL AND THE RIGHT HAND SCREWS WERE LATERAL TO PLAN. PRIOR TO THE PROCEDURE, A 10 POINT ACCURACY CHECK WAS DONE AND THE GUIDANCE SYSTEM WAS ACCURATE ON ALL TRAJECTORIES. A SURGICAL ARM AND SHOULDER CHECK WERE ALSO DONE AND BOTH PASSED. THE TRAJECTORIES WERE PLANNED BY THE SURGEON AND THE C-ARM WAS CALIBRATED. THE GUIDANCE SYSTEM WAS PLACED ON THE BED AND DRAPED AS NORMAL. DURING THE PROCEDURE, EXPOSURE AND MARKING FILMS WERE DONE BEFORE THE SURGICAL SYSTEM WAS ATTACHED TO THE PATIENT. EXPOSE WAS GENEROUS AND THERE WERE NO ISSUE WITH SOFT TISSUE PRESSURE. A DUAL CLAMP WAS USED AT T4 AND T5. THE CONSTRUCT WAS RIGID BEFORE THE GUIDANCE SYSTEM WAS PLACED TO ATTACH TO THE CLAMP. A 3DEFINE SCAN AND DRAW SPINE WERE THEN COMPLETED. REGISTRATION WAS COMPLETED WITH TWO AP AND TWO OBLIQUE SHOTS. DURING IMAGING, RESPIRATION WAS SUSPENDED TO AVOID AN CROSS VIEW ERRORS. SEGMENTATION WAS ACHIEVED ON FIRST ATTEMPT AT LABELING AND ALL TRAJECTORIES WERE GREEN. REGISTRATION WAS APPROVED BY THE SURGEONS

ROSA Robotic Surgery — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT IS REPORTED THAT DURING KNEE ARTHROPLASTY WHEN THE SURGEON WAS VALIDATING THE TIBIAL CUTS, THE SYSTEM WAS STATING THAT NOT ENOUGH WAS CUT PER THE PLAN AND THE ROD SHOWED BAD ALIGNMENT. THE SURGEON MADE ADDITIONAL CUTS TO BRING THE TIBIA INTO NEUTRAL ALIGNMENT WHEN HE SWITCHED TO CONVENTIONAL INSTRUMENTATION.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: PATIENT HAD A RIGHT MAKO THA SURGERY ON (B)(6) 2019. SHE STARTED TO EXPERIENCE DRAINAGE FROM INCISION APPROX. (B)(6) 2019. THE INCISION OPENED ON (B)(6) 2019, PATIENT WENT TO THE ER AND WAS ADMITTED. PATIENT WAS PARTIALLY REVISED ON (B)(6) 2019. PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED A WEEK AFTER REVISION AND WAS GIVEN ANTIBIOTICS. ON (B)(6) 2019 PATIENT WENT FOR A FOLLOW-UP VISIT AND WAS TOLD TO FOLLOW UP WITH HER ORIGINAL SURGEON. PATIENT WENT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL SURGEON THE SAME DAY AND WAS ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL. DURING HER HOSPITAL STAY, MULTIPLE I&DS WERE PERFORMED APPROX. (B)(6) 2019, (B)(6) 2019 AND ON (B)(6) 2019. PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED ON (B)(6) 2019. PATIENT CONTINUED TO EXPERIENCE DRAINAGE AFTER BEING DISCHARGED. ALL COMPONENTS WERE REVISED ON (B)(6) 2019 AND A CEMENT SPACER WAS PLACED. ANOTHER I&D WAS PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2019 AND WAS PLACED IN REHAB. ON (B)(6) 2019 THE SPACER WAS REMOVED, AND PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH COMPETITOR PRODUCT. THIS PI IS FOR MULTIPLE I&D¿S WHILE HOSPITALIZED.

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) VIA A MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE (REP) REGARDING A GUIDANCE DEVICE BEING USED IN A SPINAL PROCEDURE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE STEALTH EDITION CAMERA UPGRADE WAS PERFORMED THIS PAST FRIDAY. THE 4.2 SOFTWARE HAD BEEN INSTALLED FOR A FEW MONTHS. STEALTH EDITION WAS NOT USED FOR THIS CASE. THE PATIENT WAS PLACED IN THE LATERAL POSITION FOR LATERAL PROCEDURE WITH THE LEFT SIDE UP. A SCHANZ PIN WAS PLACED IN LEFT PSIS AND 3DEFINE ATTEMPT WAS SUCCESSFUL. THE ARM WAS THEN SENT TO DRAPE FOR DRAW SPINE, BUT AN ERROR MESSAGE INDICATED THAT DRAPE POSITION WAS UNREACHABLE. THE 3D WORKING VOLUME WAS THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN THE REASON FOR THIS. THE ARM WAS REMOUNTED WITH THE ELBOW JOINT ANGLE ADJUSTED SLIGHTLY. THE SECOND 3DEFINE WAS SUCCESSFUL AND THE ARM WAS SUCCESSFULLY SENT TO DRAPE MODE. DRAW SPINE WAS SUCCESSFUL. 3D MARKER SENT TO AP. THE 3D MARKER WAS ADJUSTED ANTERIOR TO BETTER CAPTURE THE AP. ERROR 295 APPEARED WHEN ATTEMPTING TO SEND THE ARM TO TAKE OBL IMAGE: ¿OBL POSITION IS UNREACHABLE. CONSIDER RE-DRAWING SPINE USING A DIFFERENT VERTEBRAL BODY.¿ THE ARM WAS MANIPULATED POSTERIOR AND THEN SUCCESSFULLY SENT TO THE OBL I

ROSA Robotic Surgery — 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 AN INITIAL KNEE SURGERY, METAL SHAVINGS WERE NOTICED WHEN DRILLING A TROCHAR PIN THROUGH ONE OF THE HOLES OF THE CUT GUIDE. ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND NO FURTHER INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED.

ROSA Robotic Surgery — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REPORTED.

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) VIA A MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE (REP) REGARDING A GUIDANCE DEVICE BEING USED IN A SPINAL PROCEDURE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE SURGEON PERFORMED AN L3-5 LATERAL MAZOR X CASE. PREPLANNING WAS DONE WITH THE SURGEON PRIOR TO THE PROCEDURE. SPECIAL ATTENTION WAS PAID TO AXIAL ANGLES AND SKIVE POTENTIALS. L3-5 OLIF WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO USING THE MAZOR X. THE PATIENT WAS POSITIONED FOR A LATERAL PROCEDURE. THE SCHANZ PIN WAS PLACED IN LEFT PSIS. AND THE SCHANZ ARM WAS ATTACHED. 3DEFINE AND DRAW SPINE WERE SUCCESSFUL. REGISTRATION WAS SUCCESSFUL USING AUTO REGISTRATION AND THE BASIC ALGORITHM. ALL 6 WIRES WERE PLACED STARTING WITH RIGHT L3. ALL RIGHT SIDE TRAJECTORIES WERE INSTRUMENTED PRIOR TO LEFT SIDE TRAJECTORIES. LATERAL CONFIRMATION FLOURO IMAGES WERE TAKEN FOR EACH TRAJECTORY AND APPEARED ACCURATE. A FINAL AP CONFIRMATION SHOWED RIGHT L3 WAS LATERAL. RIGHT L3 WAS ADJUSTED IN THE PLAN AND DRILLED AGAIN. FINAL AP AND LATERAL FLOURO IMAGES WERE TAKEN AND ALL 6 SCREWS APPEARED TO BE PLACED ACCURATELY. THE POST-OP CT SHOWED LEFT SIDE SCREWS MISPLACED MEDIALLY AND RIGHT SIDE SCREWS MISPLACED LATERALLY. UPON CASE COMPLE

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) VIA A MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE (REP) REGARDING A GUIDANCE DEVICE BEING USED IN A SPINAL PROCEDURE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PLAN FOR THE CASE WAS TO PERFORM A SCAN AND PLAN AND EXECUTE SCREWS AT T11, T12, L2, AND L3. THIS WAS TO BACK UP A L1 BURST FRACTURE. ONCE THE SURGEON EXPOSED THE REGION OF INTEREST, THE REP SUGGESTED USING THE DUAL CLAMP AND CLAMPING AT T12 AND L2 SPINOUS PROCESSES. THIS WAS TO AVOID THE INSTABILITY OF L1. THE DUAL CLAMP WAS PLACED, 3DEFINE PERFORMED, SNAPSHOT TAKEN AND THEN STAR MARKER PLACED. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PATIENT AND HEIGHT OF THE DUAL CLAMP, IT TOOK THREE SPINS OF THE O-ARM TO ACHIEVE REGISTRATION. SCREWS WERE THEN PLANNED AND REVIEWED WITH THE SURGEON. THORACIC SCREWS WERE PLANNED BETWEEN 8-10 DEGREES OFF MIDLINE TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY SOFT TISSUE PROBLEMS, WITH LUMBAR SCREWS PLANNED SLIGHTLY MORE LATERAL. THE REP NOTED THE SMALL PEDICLES TO THE SURGEON AND ASKED IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADJUST TO 4.5MM SCREWS AND THEY OPTED TO KEEP THEM AT 5.5MM. THE SCREWS WERE THEN EXECUTED STARTING WITH T11 ON THE RIGHT AND WORKING DOWN, FOLLOWED BY T11 ON THE LEFT AND WORKING DOWN. NAVIGATION S

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: PATIENT HAD A RIGHT MAKO THA SURGERY ON (B)(6) 2019. SHE STARTED TO EXPERIENCE DRAINAGE FROM INCISION APPROX. (B)(6) 2019. THE INCISION OPENED ON (B)(6) 2019, PATIENT WENT TO THE ER AND WAS ADMITTED. PATIENT WAS PARTIALLY REVISED ON (B)(6) 2019. PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED A WEEK AFTER REVISION AND WAS GIVEN ANTIBIOTICS. ON (B)(6) 2019 PATIENT WENT FOR A FOLLOW-UP VISIT AND WAS TOLD TO FOLLOW UP WITH HER ORIGINAL SURGEON. PATIENT WENT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL SURGEON THE SAME DAY AND WAS ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL. DURING HER HOSPITAL STAY, MULTIPLE I&DS WERE PERFORMED APPROX. ON (B)(6) 2019, (B)(6) 2019 AND ON (B)(6) 2019. PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED ON (B)(6) 2019. PATIENT CONTINUED TO EXPERIENCE DRAINAGE AFTER BEING DISCHARGED. ALL COMPONENTS WERE REVISED ON (B)(6) 2019 AND A CEMENT SPACER WAS PLACED. ANOTHER I&D WAS PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2019 AND WAS PLACED IN REHAB. ON (B)(6) 2019 THE SPACER WAS REMOVED, AND PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH COMPETITOR PRODUCT. THIS PI IS FOR REVISION OF 1ST REVISION.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: THIS PI IS FOR REVISION OF PRIMARY. PATIENT HAD A RIGHT MAKO THA SURGERY ON (B)(6) 2019. SHE STARTED TO EXPERIENCE DRAINAGE FROM INCISION APPROX. (B)(6) 2019. THE INCISION OPENED ON (B)(6) 2019, PATIENT WENT TO THE ER AND WAS ADMITTED. PATIENT WAS PARTIALLY REVISED ON 2019. PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED A WEEK AFTER REVISION AND WAS GIVEN ANTIBIOTICS. ON (B)(6) 2019 PATIENT WENT FOR A FOLLOW-UP VISIT AND WAS TOLD TO FOLLOW UP WITH HER ORIGINAL SURGEON. PATIENT WENT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL SURGEON THE SAME DAY AND WAS ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL. DURING HER HOSPITAL STAY, MULTIPLE I&DS WERE PERFORMED APPROX. (B)(6) 2019, (B)(6) 2019 AND ON (B)(6) 2019. PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED ON (B)(6) 2019. PATIENT CONTINUED TO EXPERIENCE DRAINAGE AFTER BEING DISCHARGED. ALL COMPONENTS WERE REVISED ON (B)(6) 2019 AND A CEMENT SPACER WAS PLACED. ANOTHER I&D WAS PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2019 AND WAS PLACED IN REHAB. ON (B)(6) 2019 THE SPACER WAS REMOVED, AND PATIENT WAS IMPLANTED WITH COMPETITOR PRODUCT.

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) VIA A MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE (REP) REGARDING A GUIDANCE DEVICE BEING USED IN A SPINAL PROCEDURE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT SHOULDER WILL NOT LOCK VIA PHYSICAL BUTTON OR SOFTWARE BUTTON. IT WAS NOTED THERE WAS NO PATIENT HARM BUT THE CASE WAS ABORTED. THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS REPORTED OR ANTICIPATED AS A RESULT OF THE EVENT.

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) VIA A MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE (REP) REGARDING A GUIDANCE DEVICE BEING USED IN A SPINAL PROCEDURE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THEY WERE DOING THE FIRST CASE WITH THE DEVICE ON THE DAY OF THE REPORT. THEY STARTED WITH L45 AND L3-4 INTRALIFS. THE L4-5 LEVEL WAS CONDUCTED AS A TRUE INTRALIF UTILIZING THE TRAJECTORY OF THE ROBOT ARM. THE HCP REMOVED THE INTERNAL DISSECTOR AND PLACED A 7.5 MM AND 6.5 MM DILATOR FROM JOIMAX AND PASSED A K-WIRE THROUGH IT. THEN, THEY TOOK OUT THE DILATORS AND PASSED THROUGH A GLOBUS 8/5 MM TUBE THAT WAS SURE-TRACKED. THE HCP USED THE ROBOT TO GUIDE TO BOTH DISC SPACES. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ROBOT SYSTEM AND NAVIGATION PERFORMED AS PLANNED. THE DILATOR WAS ACCURATE ON THE NAVIGATION WHEN USED WITH THE INSTRUMENTS. THE PATIENT HAD A LEFT L3 NEUROPRAXIA. THE PSOAS BELLY WAS MORE POSTERIOR THAN THE HCP THOUGHT. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE INTRALIF MAY NEED NEUROMONITORING. THE LEFT L4-5 WENT SMOOTHLY BUT THE HCP DECIDED TO BE A LITTLE EXTRA FORAMINAL FOR L3-4. IT WAS NOTED THE HCP MAY HAVE CONVERTED THE INTRALIF ALMOST INTO A ROBOT-GUIDED ENDOSCOPIC XLIF. THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS REPORTE

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) VIA A MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE (REP) REGARDING A GUIDANCE DEVICE BEING USED IN A SPINAL PROCEDURE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE TRAJECTORIES WERE LOW ON FIVE OF THE LAST 6 CASES. THE HCP PERFORMED AN MIS TLIF. THE ROBOT WAS SENT TO THE L5 AND S1 TRAJECTORIES ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT, THE SKIN WAS MARKED AND THEN INCISION WAS MADE. THE INNER AND OUTER DRILL GUIDE WAS PLACED AND THE PEDICLE WAS DRILLED. THE REDUCTION TUBE WAS INSERTED AND GUIDEWIRES PLACED THROUGH THE TUBES. THE C ARM WAS BROUGHT IN TO VERIFY GUIDEWIRE PLACEMENT. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE WIRES APPEARED LOW BUT SHOULD BE OK. A TLIF WAS PERFORMED AND THEN SCREWS INSERTED USING FLUOROSCOPY. ON SUNDAY (B)(6) 2019 THE PATIENT HAD TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE OR TO REMOVE THE L5 AND S1 SCREWS ON THE PATIENTS LEFT SIDE AS THEY WERE LOW AND THE L5 SCREW APPEARED TO BE IN THE FORAMEN. IT WAS DEEMED THAT THE SCREWS ON THE PATIENTS RIGHT SIDE WERE LOW BUT WERE STILL IN THE PEDICLE SO WERE LEFT IN. THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS REPORTED OR ANTICIPATED AS A RESULT OF THE EVENT.

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) VIA A MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE (REP) REGARDING A GUIDANCE DEVICE BEING USED IN A SPINAL PROCEDURE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THERE WERE 3 MISPLACED SCREWS WITH CANAL BREECHES AND DURAL TEARS. IT WAS NOTED THAT EXTREME SOFT TISSUE PRESSURE AND POOR TECHNIQUE LEAD TO THE EVENT. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE NAVIGATION DID NOT DEPICT THE DEVIATIONS TRUE AS THEY OVERLAID THE ARM TRAJECTORY AND GAVE A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SURGERY WAS COMPLETED WITH FREE HAND NAVIGATION. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE REP INDICATED THAT THE SCREW PLACEMENT WAS 10-11MM MIDLINE. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE TECHNIQUE ISSUES INCLUDED A DEEP BIG PATIENT AND LOTS OF TISSUE PRESSURE. MICROSCOPE AND SUTURE TO REPAIR TEARS WAS DONE TO RESOLVE THE DURAL TEARS. THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS REPORTED OR ANTICIPATED AS A RESULT OF THE EVENT.

Mazor X — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MEDTRONIC RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL (HCP) VIA A MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE (REP) REGARDING A GUIDANCE DEVICE BEING USED IN A SPINAL PROCEDURE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT 3DEFINE FAILED DURING THE PROCEDURE. A SECOND 3DEFINE WAS SUCCESSFUL. REGISTRATION WAS PERFORMED QUICKLY. UPON INSTRUMENTING FIRST TRAJECTORY (LEFT L4), THE WORKSTATION BEEPED AND GAVE AN INSTRUCTION TO LOCK THE ARM IN THE SOFTWARE. THE SURGEON DID NOT HAVE TOOLS IN THE ARM GUIDE WHEN THIS NOTIFICATION OCCURRED. THE ARM WAS RELOCKED IN THE SOFTWARE AND ANOTHER 3DEFINE WAS PERFORMED. THE 3DEFINE FAILED AGAIN ON THE FIRST ATTEMPT. THE SECOND ATTEMPT FOR 3DEFINE WAS SUCCESSFUL. REGISTRATION WAS PERFORMED QUICKLY, AND SURGEON INSTRUMENTED ALL 4 TRAJECTORIES. AP AND LATERAL X-RAY IMAGES VERIFIED WIRES WERE ACCURATELY PLACED. TWO DAYS FOLLOWING THE CASE, THE REP RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT THE RIGHT L4 SCREW HAD BEEN MISPLACED LATERAL AND SUPERIOR. REVISION PROCEDURE WAS SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY (B)(6) 2019 TO REMOVE SCREW AND PLACE NEW ONE. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE WORKSTATION WOULD NOT ALLOW IMPORT OR EXPORT OF ANY DATA. THE PATIENT COMPLAINED OF RIGHT LEG PAIN POST OPERATIVELY. ADDITIONAL INFORMATI

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 "PARTIAL NEPHROTIC ROBOTIC LAPAROSCOPIC PROCEDURE" ON (B)(6)2019 WHO WAS READMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL "FOUR DAYS AFTER HER SURGERY" ON (B)(6) 2021 EXHIBITING POST-OPERATIVE SYMPTOMS OF ¿REGURGITATED APPROXIMATE 30 TIMES DURING THE PREVIOUS NINE HOURS"; VOMITING "BLACK COFFEE GROUND MATERIAL THAT SMELLED OF FECES." A RE-OPERATION WAS PERFORMED TO REPAIR AN "8MM HOLE" THAT HAD BEEN ¿LEFT BY THE ARM OF THE TROCHAR" CAUSING THE PATIENT¿S BOWEL TO BECOME "HERNIATED AND STRANGULATED." THE PATIENT WAS REPORTED AS STABLE AND THE PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED. IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT A "BROKEN MACHINE" WAS NOT "ADEQUATELY REPAIRED" PRIOR TO THE INITIAL PROCEDURE ON (B)(6) 2019. IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT DURING THE INITIAL PROCEDURE ON (B)(6) 2019, THERE WAS A "NEED TO CONVERT TO AN OPEN PROCEDURE," THERE WERE "ADDITIONAL OR LARGER INCISIONS," THAT THERE WAS ¿EQUIPMENT FAILURE," AND THERE WERE "UNCONTROLLED ELECTRICAL CURRENTS" WITH "PARTS OF THE ROBOT BEING LEFT BEHIND," AND THERE WERE "TISSUE BURNS" DUE TO "THE SURGEON NOT BEING IN TOTAL CONTROL OF THE ROBOT." THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL

mBot — Kit for building a blue metal robot, supplied in a cardboard box with markings. Only model mBot V1.1 is affected and subject to this measure. Hazard (Burns, Chemical): Due to a short-circuit, the batteries can overheat and the plastic of the battery compartment can melt. Moreover, the battery compartment of the remote-control can easily be opened without use of any tools, giving access to the button cell batteries. A child may sustain burns from the overheating parts or put the batteries in 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: ON 28-MAR-2023, INTUITIVE SURGICAL BECAME AWARE OF A JOURNAL OF BREAST CANCER ARTICLE TITLED, ¿DEVELOPMENT OF ROBOTIC MASTECTOMY USING A SINGLE-PORT SURGICAL ROBOT SYSTEM¿ (PARK, H.S., ET AL., 2020). WITHIN THE JOURNAL ARTICLE, IT WAS MENTIONED AFTER A BILATERAL DA-VINCI ASSISTED MASTECTOMY PERFORMED ON (B)(6) 2018 ON A PATIENT WITH DUCTAL CARCINOMA IN SITU (DCIS), THERE WAS A MINOR SKIN BURN FOUND ON THE RIGHT BREAST. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF MEDICAL TREATMENT TO ADDRESS THE MINOR SKIN BURN IN THE ARTICLE. THERE WERE NO OTHER IMMEDIATE POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS. THE PATIENT WAS DISCHARGED ON POSTOPERATIVE DAY 15 AND DRAIN WAS REMOVED ON DAY 24. PATIENT RE-VISITED THE CLINIC ON DAY 55 BECAUSE OF REDNESS AND HEATING SENSATION OF THE RIGHT BREAST. ANTIBIOTICS AND CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT INCLUDING DRESSING AND RE-INSERTION OF THE DRAIN WERE APPLIED. HER SYMPTOMS SUBSIDED AFTER 1 DAY OF TREATMENT AND NO MAJOR SURGICAL INTERVENTION WAS NEEDED. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY MALFUNCTIONS OF ANY DV SYSTEMS, INSTRUMENTS OR ACCESSORIES. FENESTRATED BIPOLAR FOCEPS (FBF) INSTRUMENT, MARLAND FORCEPS INSTRUMENT AND MONOPOLAR CURVED SCISSORS (MCS) WERE INSTALLED ON UNIVERSAL SURGICAL MANIPULATOR(US

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: SURGEON NOTICED A FEMUR DURING PRIMARY TKA.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT PATIENT'S RIGHT MEDIAL KNEE WAS REVISED TO A PS TOTAL KNEE DUE TO PAIN AND OSTEOARTHRITIS.

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) BECAME AWARE OF AN INNOVATIONS JOURNAL ARTICLE TITLED, "EARLY CLINICAL EXPERIENCES OF ROBOTIC ASSISTED AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT FOR AORTIC VALVE STENOSIS WITH SUTURELESS AORTIC VALVE¿ (NAGAOKA, E. ET. AL. 2020). IN THIS ARTICLE, STUDY DATA WAS RETROSPECTIVELY COLLECTED FROM 2 PATIENTS WHO UNDERWENT DA VINCI-ASSISTED AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT (AVR) IN A SINGLE INSTITUTION BETWEEN MAY AND JUNE 2018. THERE WERE NO MAJOR COMPLICATIONS REPORTED AND NO CONVERSIONS TO STERNOTOMY. WITHIN THE ARTICLE, THE FOLLOWING IS NOTED: "ONE PATIENT HAD FLUID OVERLOAD POSTOPERATIVELY DUE TO VASODILATATION AND REQUIRED AGGRESSIVE DIURESIS. OTHERWISE, POSTOPERATIVE CONVALESCENCE WAS UNCOMPLICATED. THEY WERE DISCHARGED HOME AT DAYS 4 AND 10 AFTER OPERATION, DUE TO POSTOPERATIVE ATRIAL FIBRILLATION RESPECTIVELY (TABLE 3)." ISI FOLLOWED UP WITH THE AUTHOR AND OBTAINED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REGARDING THE ARTICLE: "THE POST-OPERATIVE OUTCOME WAS UNRELATED TO THE FUNCTION OF THE DA VINCI SYSTEM." HE FURTHER INDICATED THAT "THERE ARE NO SUCH ALLEGATIONS" THAT A MALFUNCTION OF A DA VINCI SYSTEM, AN INSTRUMENT, OR AN ACCESSORY OCCURRED DURING THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE INVOLVING THE

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: PATIENT HAD A MAKO UNI AND PATELLA FEMORAL REPLACEMENT ON (B)(6) 2017 AND RECENTLY PRESENTED WITH PERSISTENT PAIN. DOCTOR REMOVED IMPLANTS AND REVISED WITH A TOTAL KNEE.

da Vinci Surgical System — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: REFER TO H10/H11 FOR FOLLOW-UP INFORMATION.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: IT WAS REPORTED THAT PATIENT'S LEFT MAKO UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE WAS REVISED DUE TO MCL INSTABILITY.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: SURGEON DID AN I&D WITH AN INSERT SWAP OF THE LEFT KNEE DONE AS A MAKO MEDIAL ORIGINALLY ON (B)(6) 2017.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: A SIZE 5X9MM ONLAY TIBIAL INSERT WAS INSERTED ON A SIZE 6 TIBIAL BASE PLATE. UPDATE AS PER SALES RESPONSE RECEIVED ON 09-DEC-2016: "REASON FOR REVISION WAS: SURGEON PUT A 5X9 POLY ON A SIZE 6 TIBIA BASE PLATE. IT WAS NOT PRODUCT ERROR. THE 5X9MM WAS REMOVED AND A 6X9MM WAS PUT IN PLACE."

CyberKnife — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: A SYSTEM TECHNICIAN RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK WHILE MAKING ADJUSTMENTS IN THE EQUIPMENT ROOM.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: MAKO ROBOT BY STRYKER ORTHO FAILED. THE SENSORS STOPPED COMMUNICATING WITH THE COMPUTER. THIS HAPPENED AFTER BEGINNING A SURGERY FOR A KNEE REPLACEMENT. THE HOSPITAL HAD TO CALL IN ANOTHER COMPANY TO USE THEIR INSTRUMENTS AND IMPLANTS INSTEAD OF THE MAKO/STRYKER WHICH COULD NOT BE FIXED AFTER 15 MINUTES OF FAILED ATTEMPTS IN THE OPERATING ROOM.

Mako Robotic-Arm — Injury report filed with FDA (MAUDE). A MAUDE report does not establish that the device caused the outcome. Reported narrative: SURGEON REVISED LEFT MAKO KNEE DUE TO PAIN AND INFECTION.

In addition, as further described in Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8, we are currently named as a defendant in approximately 102 individual product liability lawsuits and a multi-plaintiff product liability lawsuit filed on behalf of 20 patients who underwent da Vinci Surgery.