Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon's physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures

International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 142-147

  Hubert, N ^a   Gilles, M ^b   Desbrosses, K ^b   Meyer, Jp ^b   Felblinger, J ^a   Hubert, J ^a  

^a CHU NANCY BRABOIS   (France)

^b INSTITUT NATIONAL DE RECHERCHE ET DE SÉCURITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

Ergonomy; Laparoscopy; Physical stress; Robotics; Subjective workload

Indexed keywords

ERGONOMICS; HEART; LAPAROSCOPY; MUSCLE; NASA;

BACKGROUND STANDARDS; ERGONOMIC ASSESSMENT; ERGONOMY; HEART-RATE; LAPAROSCOPIC PROCEDURES; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS; MUSCULOSKELETAL PROBLEMS; PHYSICAL STRESS; PHYSICAL WORKLOADS; SUBJECTIVE WORKLOAD;

ROBOTICS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; ERGONOMICS; HEART RATE; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPY; MENTAL STRESS; MUSCLE CONTRACTION; MUSCLE FATIGUE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROCEDURE; ROBOTICS; SURGEON; TRAPEZIUS MUSCLE; WORKLOAD;

EID: 84878978011     PISSN: 14785951     EISSN: 1478596X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1489     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Berguer R, Rab G, Abu-Ghaida H, et al. A comparison of surgeons' posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 1997; 11: 139-142.
2. Gofrit O, Mikahail A, Zorn K, et al. A. Surgeons' perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology 2008; 71: 404-407.
3. Bagrodia A, Raman J. Ergonomics considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J Endourol 2009; 23: 627-633.
4. Berguer R. The application of ergonomics in the work environment of general surgeons. Rev Environ Health 1997; 12: 99-106.
5. Matern U, Waller P, Giebmeyer C, et al. Ergonomics: requirements for adjusting the height of laparoscopic operating tables. JSLS 2001; 5: 7-12.
6. Van Det MJ, Meijerink W, Hoff C, et al. Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 1279-1285.
7. Wauben L, Van Veelen MA, Gossot D, Goossens R. Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 1268-1274.
8. Van Veelen MA, Jakimowicz JJ, Kazemier G. Improved physical ergonomics of laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2004; 13: 161-166.
9. Perez-Duarte FJ, Sanchez-Margallo FM, Diaz-Guemes Martin-Portugues I, et al. Ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery and its importance in surgical training. Cir Esp 2011; 90: 284-291.
10. Berguer R, Smith W. An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res 2006; 134: 87-92.
11. Johnston WR, Hollenbeck B, Wolf JJ. Comparison of neuromuscular injuries to the surgeon during hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic urologic surgery. J Endourol 2005; 19: 377-381.
12. Lee E, Rafiq A, Merrell R, et al. Ergonomics and human factors in endoscopic surgery: a comparison of manual vs telerobotic simulation systems. Surg Endosc 2005; 19: 1064-1070.
13. Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JJ, et al. Robotic assistanceimproves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 377-382.
14. Berquer R, Smith W, Davis S. An ergonomic study of the optimum operating table height for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 416-421.
15. Borg G. Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales. In Human Kinetics. : Champaign, IL, 1998.
16. Borg G. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health 1990; 16(Suppl 1): 55-58.
17. Borg G. A general scale to rate symptoms and feelings related to problems of ergonomic and organizational importance. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 2008; 30: A8-A10.
18. Wangenheim M, Carlsoo S, Nordgren B, Linroth K. Perception of efforts in working postures. Ups J Med Sci 1986; 91: 53-66.
19. Hart S, Staveland L. Development of Nasa-Tlx (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Human Mental Workload 1988; 1: 139-183.
20. Lee Y, Liu B. Inflight workload assessment: comparison of subjective and physiological measurements. Aviat Space Environ Med 2003; 74: 1078-1084.
21. Young G, Zavelina L, Hooper V. Assessment of workload using nasa task load index in perianesthesia nursing. J Perianesth Nurs 2008; 23: 102-110.
22. Hermens H, Freriks L, Merletti R, et al. SENIAM 8: European recommendations for surface electromyography. Roessingh Research and Development BV: Enschede, The Netherlands, 1999.
23. Lawson E, Curet M, Sanchez B, et al. Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2007; 1: 61-67.
24. Szeto G, Ho P, Ting A, et al. Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms in surgeons. J Occup Rehabil 2009; 19: 175-184.
25. Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P, et al. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 1-6.
26. Dulabon L, Kaouk JH, Haber GP, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of robotic partial nephrectomy for hilar versus nonhilar lesions in 446 consecutive cases. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 325-330.