Literature DB >> 18815838

Ergonomic risk associated with assisting in minimally invasive surgery.

Gyusung Lee1, Tommy Lee, David Dexter, Carlos Godinez, Nora Meenaghan, Robert Catania, Adrian Park.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Given the physical risks associated with performing laparoscopic surgery, ergonomics to date has focused on the primary minimally invasive surgeon. Similar studies have not extended to other operating room staff. Simulation of the assistant's role as camera holder and retractor during a Nissen fundoplication allowed investigation of the ergonomic risks involved in these tasks.
METHODS: Seven subjects performed camera navigation and retraction tasks using a box trainer on an operating room table that simulated an adult patient in low lithotomy position. Each subject stood on force plates at the simulated patient's left side. A laparoscope was introduced through a port into the training box with four 2-cm circles as rear-panel targets located in relation to the assistant as distal superior, proximal superior, distal inferior, and proximal inferior target effects. The subjects held the camera with their left hand, pointing it at a target. The task was to match the target to a circle overlaid on the monitor. Simultaneously, a grasper in the right hand grasped and pulled a panel-attached band. A minute signal moved the subject to the next target. Each trial had three four-target repetitions (phase effect). The subjects performed two separate trials: one while holding the camera from the top and one while holding it from the bottom (grip effect). A 4 x 3 x 2 (target x phase x grip) repeated-measures design provided statistics. Dividing the left force-plate vertical ground reaction forces (VGRF) by the total VGRF from both plates provided a weight-loading ratio (WLR).
RESULTS: The WLR significantly increased (p < 0.005) with proximal targets (2 by 80% and 4 by 79%). The WLR decreased 75%, 74%, and 71% over time. No difference existed between the grip strategies (grip effect, p > 0.5).
CONCLUSIONS: A high-risk ergonomic situation is created by the assistant's left or caudal leg disproportionately bearing 70-80% of body weight over time. A distance increase between the camera head location and the camera holder increases ergonomic risk. The phase effect was interpreted as a compensatory rebalancing to reduce ergonomic risk. Ergonomic solutions minimizing ergonomic risks associated with laparoscopic assistance should be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18815838     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-0141-4

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


  40 in total

1.  Posture, discomfort and performance in a VDT task.

Authors:  M H Liao; C G Drury
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.778

2.  Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  R Berguer; D L Forkey; W D Smith
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.584

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

Authors:  M A Veelen; J J Jakimowicz; R H M Goossens; D W Meijer; J B J Bussmann
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-12-31       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  The effect of using laparoscopic instruments on muscle activation patterns during minimally invasive surgical training procedures.

Authors:  N E Quick; J C Gillette; R Shapiro; G L Adrales; D Gerlach; A E Park
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-10-29       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Monitor height affects surgeons' stress level and performance on minimally invasive surgery tasks.

Authors:  Warren D Smith; Ramon Berguer; Ninh T Nguyen
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2005

6.  Acquisition of arm and instrument movements during laparoscopic interventions.

Authors: 
Journal:  Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.442

7.  A technique for assessing postural discomfort.

Authors:  E N Corlett; R P Bishop
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 8.  Methodological infrastructure in surgical ergonomics: a review of tasks, models, and measurement systems.

Authors:  Gyusung Lee; Tommy Lee; David Dexter; Rosemary Klein; Adrian Park
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.058

9.  Comparison of direct vision and electronic two- and three-dimensional display systems on surgical task efficiency in endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  G Crosthwaite; T Chung; P Dunkley; S Shimi; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 10.  Minimal access surgery (MAS)-related surgeon morbidity syndromes.

Authors:  D A G Reyes; B Tang; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-06       Impact factor: 3.453

View more
  17 in total

1.  [Radical prostatectomy - pro robotic].

Authors:  R Gillitzer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Spine surgeon's kinematics during discectomy according to operating table height and the methods to visualize the surgical field.

Authors:  Jeong Yoon Park; Kyung Hyun Kim; Sung Uk Kuh; Dong Kyu Chin; Keun Su Kim; Yong Eun Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries.

Authors:  Gyusung I Lee; Mija R Lee; Tameka Clanton; Tamera Clanton; Erica Sutton; Adrian E Park; Michael R Marohn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Higher physical workload risks with NOTES versus laparoscopy: a quantitative ergonomic assessment.

Authors:  Gyusung Lee; Erica Sutton; Tameka Clanton; Adrian Park
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Experience implication in subjective surgical ergonomics comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgeries.

Authors:  V Mendes; Franck Bruyere; Jean Michel Escoffre; Aurelien Binet; Hubert Lardy; Henri Marret; Frederic Marchal; Thomas Hebert
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-03-12

6.  Which causes more ergonomic stress: Laparoscopic or open surgery?

Authors:  Robert Wang; Zhe Liang; Ahmed M Zihni; Shuddhadeb Ray; Michael M Awad
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Effect of Patient Body Mass Index on Laparoscopic Surgical Ergonomics.

Authors:  Zhe Liang; William D Gerull; Robert Wang; Ahmed Zihni; Shuddhadeb Ray; Michael Awad
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 4.129

8.  FLS tasks can be used as an ergonomic discriminator between laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

Authors:  Ahmed M Zihni; Ikechukwu Ohu; Jaime A Cavallo; Jenny Ousley; Sohyung Cho; Michael M Awad
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Ahmed M Zihni; Ikechukwu Ohu; Jaime A Cavallo; Sohyung Cho; Michael M Awad
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Spine surgeon's kinematics during discectomy, part II: operating table height and visualization methods, including microscope.

Authors:  Jeong Yoon Park; Kyung Hyun Kim; Sung Uk Kuh; Dong Kyu Chin; Keun Su Kim; Yong Eun Cho
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-12-24       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.