Literature DB >> 11972213

Evaluation of the usability of two types of image display systems, during laparoscopy.

M A Veelen1, J J Jakimowicz, R H M Goossens, D W Meijer, J B J Bussmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to assess the optimal display location of a flat-screen monitor for laparoscopy. It was also performed to assess the posture (objective), opinion, and preference (subjective) of subjects using a flat-screen monitor positioned in the optimal display location and a cathode-ray tube monitor on a tower next to the operating table (current situation).
METHODS: Twelve surgeons performed cholecystectomies using the two display systems alternately. The postures of the operator and the assistant were assessed by an infrared video analysis system.
RESULTS: The posture of the assistant is significantly better when using a flat-screen monitor [more neutral head flexions (p = 0.036) and neutral neck torsions (p = 0.012)]. No significant differences were found for the posture of the operator. The operators and assistants felt more comfortable when using a flat-screen monitor (p = 0.008) and they preferred this display to the use of a monitor on a tower.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of flat-screen monitors is better for the physical and psychological comfort of the users, even though the technical performance is inferior in comparison with that of regular monitors.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11972213     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-9116-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  9 in total

1.  The effect on sitting posture of a desk with a 10 degree inclination for reading and writing.

Authors:  M de Wall; M P van Riel; C J Snijders; J P van Wingerden
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 2.778

2.  Preferred position of visual displays relative to the eyes: a field study of visual strain and individual differences.

Authors:  W Jaschinski; H Heuer; H Kylian
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 2.778

3.  Influence of screen and copy holder positions on head posture, muscle activity and user judgement.

Authors:  W Bauer; T Wittig
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 3.661

4.  The effects of video display terminal height on the operator: a comparison of the 15 degree and 40 degree recommendations.

Authors:  K L Turville; J P Psihogios; T R Ulmer; G A Mirka
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 3.661

5.  Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display.

Authors:  G B Hanna; S M Shimi; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  A comparison of surgeons' posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures.

Authors:  R Berguer; G T Rab; H Abu-Ghaida; A Alarcon; J Chung
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  The application of ergonomics in the work environment of general surgeons.

Authors:  R Berguer
Journal:  Rev Environ Health       Date:  1997 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 3.458

8.  Sitting posture and neck and shoulder muscle activities at different screen height settings of the visual display terminal.

Authors:  M B Villanueva; H Jonai; M Sotoyama; N Hisanaga; Y Takeuchi; S Saito
Journal:  Ind Health       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.179

9.  Visual display height.

Authors:  R Burgess-Limerick; M Mon-Williams; V L Coppard
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.888

  9 in total
  17 in total

1.  Ergonomic problems encountered by the medical team related to products used for minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  M A van Veelen; E A L Nederlof; R H M Goossens; C J Schot; J J Jakimowicz
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-05-06       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Improvement of foot pedals used during surgery based on new ergonomic guidelines.

Authors:  M A van Veelen; C J Snijders; E van Leeuwen; R H M Goossens; G Kazemier
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-05-06       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Ergonomic assessment of the static stress confronted by surgeons during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  A Vereczkei; H Feussner; T Negele; F Fritzsche; T Seitz; H Bubb; O P Horváth
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Ergonomic testing of two different types of handles via virtual reality simulation.

Authors:  U Matern; S Koneczny; M Tedeus; K Dietz; G Buess
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-04-28       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Monitor position in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  U Matern; M Faist; K Kehl; C Giebmeyer; G Buess
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-01-10       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons.

Authors:  L S G L Wauben; M A van Veelen; D Gossot; R H M Goossens
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  An ergonomic analysis of the effects of camera rotation on laparoscopic performance.

Authors:  Anthony G Gallagher; Musallam Al-Akash; Neal E Seymour; Richard M Satava
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Interoperative efficiency in minimally invasive surgery suites.

Authors:  M J van Det; W J H J Meijerink; C Hoff; J P E N Pierie
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Minimally invasive surgery training using multiple port sites to improve performance.

Authors:  Alan D White; Oscar Giles; Rebekah J Sutherland; Oliver Ziff; Mark Mon-Williams; Richard M Wilkie; J Peter A Lodge
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Ergonomic risk associated with assisting in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Gyusung Lee; Tommy Lee; David Dexter; Carlos Godinez; Nora Meenaghan; Robert Catania; Adrian Park
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-09-25       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.