Literature DB >> 24619332

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

Ahmed M Zihni1, Ikechukwu Ohu, Jaime A Cavallo, Jenny Ousley, Sohyung Cho, Michael M Awad.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery may result in ergonomic benefits to surgeons. In this pilot study, we utilize surface electromyography (sEMG) to describe a method for identifying ergonomic differences between laparoscopic and robotic platforms using validated Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) tasks. We hypothesize that FLS task performance on laparoscopic and robotic surgical platforms will produce significant differences in mean muscle activation, as quantified by sEMG.
METHODS: Six right-hand-dominant subjects with varying experience performed FLS peg transfer (PT), pattern cutting (PC), and intracorporeal suturing (IS) tasks on laparoscopic and robotic platforms. sEMG measurements were obtained from each subject's bilateral bicep, tricep, deltoid, and trapezius muscles. EMG measurements were normalized to the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) of each muscle of each subject. Subjects repeated each task three times per platform, and mean values used for pooled analysis. Average normalized muscle activation (%MVC) was calculated for each muscle group in all subjects for each FLS task. We compared mean %MVC values with paired t tests and considered differences with a p value less than 0.05 to be statistically significant.
RESULTS: Mean activation of right bicep (2.7 %MVC lap, 1.3 %MVC robotic, p = 0.019) and right deltoid muscles (2.4 %MVC lap, 1.0 %MVC robotic, p = 0.019) were significantly elevated during the laparoscopic compared to the robotic IS task. The mean activation of the right trapezius muscle was significantly elevated during robotic compared to the laparoscopic PT (1.6 %MVC lap, 3.5 %MVC robotic, p = 0.040) and PC (1.3 %MVC lap, 3.6 %MVC robotic, p = 0.0018) tasks.
CONCLUSIONS: FLS tasks are validated, readily available instruments that are feasible for use in demonstrating ergonomic differences between surgical platforms. In this study, we used FLS tasks to compare mean muscle activation of four muscle groups during laparoscopic and robotic task performance. FLS tasks can serve as the basis for larger studies to further describe ergonomic differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24619332     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3497-7

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


  25 in total

1.  A comparison of the physical effort required for laparoscopic and open surgical techniques.

Authors:  Ramon Berguer; Jerry Chen; Warren D Smith
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2003-09

2.  Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association Basic Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery skills curriculum.

Authors:  Robert M Sweet; Rebekah Beach; Francois Sainfort; Priyanka Gupta; Troy Reihsen; Lauren H Poniatowski; Elspeth M McDougall
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  Value of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery training in a fourth-year medical school advanced surgical skills elective.

Authors:  David A Edelman; Mark A Mattos; David L Bouwman
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 2.192

Review 4.  Computer-assisted robotic antireflux surgery.

Authors:  A S Wright; J C Gould; W S Melvin
Journal:  Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol       Date:  2004-09

Review 5.  Robotics in gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  A C Frick; T Falcone
Journal:  Minerva Ginecol       Date:  2009-06

6.  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

Review 7.  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

8.  Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic.

Authors:  Adrian Park; Gyusung Lee; F Jacob Seagull; Nora Meenaghan; David Dexter
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Blinded assessment of operative performance after fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery in gynecology training.

Authors:  Danielle D Antosh; Tamika Auguste; Elizabeth A George; Andrew I Sokol; Robert E Gutman; Cheryl B Iglesia; Sameer Y Desale; Amy J Park
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 4.137

10.  Comparison between open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease.

Authors:  Ricky H Bhogal; Ruvinder Athwal; Damien Durkin; Mark Deakin; Chandra N V Cheruvu
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.352

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  Musculoskeletal pain among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tina Dalager; Karen Søgaard; Katrine Tholstrup Bech; Ole Mogensen; Pernille Tine Jensen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Muscle activation during traditional laparoscopic surgery compared with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jaime Hislop; Oren Tirosh; John McCormick; Romesh Nagarajah; Chris Hensman; Mats Isaksson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  LAPKaans: Tool-Motion Tracking and Gripping Force-Sensing Modular Smart Laparoscopic Training System.

Authors:  Luis H Olivas-Alanis; Ricardo A Calzada-Briseño; Victor Segura-Ibarra; Elisa V Vázquez; Jose A Diaz-Elizondo; Eduardo Flores-Villalba; Ciro A Rodriguez
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 3.576

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.