Literature DB >> 24928233

Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures.

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

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Many laparoscopic surgeons report musculoskeletal symptoms that are thought to be related to the ergonomic stress of performing laparoscopy. Robotic surgical systems may address many of these limitations. To date, however, there have been no studies exploring the quantitative ergonomics of robotic surgery. In this study, we sought to compare the activation of bilateral biceps, triceps, deltoid, and trapezius muscle groups during traditional laparoscopic surgery (TLS) and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) procedures, as quantified by surface electromyography (sEMG).
METHODS: One surgeon with expertise in TLS and RALS performed 18 operative procedures (13 TLS, 5 RALS) while sEMG measurements were obtained from bilateral biceps, triceps, deltoid, and trapezius muscles. sEMG measurements were normalized to the maximum voluntary contraction of each muscle (%MVC). We compared mean %MVC values for each muscle group during TLS and RALS with unpaired t-tests and considered differences with a p value <0.05 to be statistically significant.
RESULTS: Muscle activation was higher during TLS compared to RALS in bilateral biceps (L Biceps RALS:1.01%MVC, L Biceps TLS:3.14, p = 0.01; R Biceps RALS:1.81%MVC, R Biceps TLS:4.53, p = 0.0002). Muscle activation was higher during TLS compared to RALS in bilateral triceps (L Triceps RALS:1.73%MVC, L Triceps TLS:3.58, p = 0.04; R Triceps RALS:1.59%MVC, R Triceps TLS:5.11, p = 0.02). Muscle activation was higher during TLS compared to RALS in bilateral deltoids (L Deltoid RALS:1.50%MVC, L Deltoid TLS:3.68, p = 0.03; R Deltoid RALS:1.19%MVC, R Deltoid TLS:2.57, p = 0.01). Significant differences were not detected in the bilateral trapezius muscles (L Trapezius RALS:1.50 %MVC, L Trapezius TLS:3.68, p = 0.03; R Trapezius RALS:1.19%MVC, R Trapezius TLS:2.57, p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: We have quantitatively examined the ergonomics of TLS and RALS and shown that in a single surgeon, TLS procedures are associated with significantly elevated biceps, triceps, and deltoid activation bilaterally when compared to RALS procedures.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24928233     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3604-9

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


  21 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

Review 2.  Computer-assisted robotic antireflux surgery.

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

3.  Effect of aviation snip design and task height on upper extremity muscular activity and wrist posture.

Authors:  Dan Anton; Fredric Gerr; Alysha Meyers; Thomas M Cook; John C Rosecrance; Jonathan Reynolds
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 4.  Robotics in gynecologic surgery.

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

5.  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

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.  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

Review 10.  Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ming-Zhe Li; Lei Lian; Long-bin Xiao; Wen-hui Wu; Yu-long He; Xin-ming Song
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 2.565

View more
  20 in total

1.  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

2.  Analysis of the posture pattern during robotic simulator tasks using an optical motion capture system.

Authors:  Kenta Takayasu; Kenji Yoshida; Takao Mishima; Masato Watanabe; Tadashi Matsuda; Hidefumi Kinoshita
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  A review on robotic surgery in rectal cancer.

Authors:  Zairul Azwan Mohd Azman; Seon-Hahn Kim
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-03-16

4.  Physical and Mental Impact of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy on the Surgeon: French vs. American Positions. A Randomized and Controlled Study.

Authors:  José E Carmona; Jorge A Higuerey; Doubraska Gil; Mabel Castillo; Valentina Escalona
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.129

5.  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

6.  "Alarm-corrected" ergonomic armrest use could improve learning curves of novices on robotic simulator.

Authors:  Kun Yang; Manuela Perez; Gabriela Hossu; Nicolas Hubert; Cyril Perrenot; Jacques Hubert
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  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 8.  Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Health of the Surgeon.

Authors:  Andrew T Schlussel; Justin A Maykel
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2019-08-22

9.  Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Adolescents; Reality or Hype.

Authors:  Victoria K Pepper; Terrence M Rager; Karen A Diefenbach; Mehul V Raval; Steven Teich; Marc P Michalsky
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.129

10.  Does robotic rectal cancer surgery improve the results of experienced laparoscopic surgeons? An observational single institution study comparing 168 robotic assisted with 184 laparoscopic rectal resections.

Authors:  Rogier M P H Crolla; Paul G Mulder; George P van der Schelling
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.