Literature DB >> 25315401

Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study.

Megan E Tarr1, Sam J Brancato2, Jacqueline A Cunkelman3, Anthony Polcari2, Benjamin Nutter4, Kimberly Kenton3.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To compare resident, fellow, and attending urologic and gynecologic surgeons' musculoskeletal and mental strain during laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy from October 2009 to January 2011.
INTERVENTIONS: The Body Part Discomfort (BPD) survey was completed before cases, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index and BPD survey were completed after cases. Higher scores on BPD and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index indicate greater musculoskeletal discomfort and mental strain. BPD scores were averaged over the following body regions: head/neck, back, hand/wrist, arms, and knees/ankles/feet. Changes in body region-specific discomfort scores were the primary outcomes.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Multivariable analysis was performed using mixed-effects linear regression with surgeon as a random effect. Sixteen surgeons participated (53% fellows, 34% residents, and 13% attendings). Thirty-three robotic and 53 laparoscopic cases were analyzed, with a median surgical time of 231 minutes (interquartile range, 204-293 minutes) versus 227 minutes (interquartile range, 203-272 minutes; p = .31), a median estimated blood loss of 100 mL (interquartile range, 50-175 mL) versus 150 mL (interquartile range, 50-200 mL; p = .22), and a mean patient body mass index of 27 ± 4 versus 26 ± 4 kg/m(2) (p = .26), respectively. Robotic surgeries were associated with lower neck/shoulder (-0.19 [interquartile range, -0.32 to -0.01], T = -2.49) and back discomfort scores (-0.35 [interquartile range, -0.58 to 0], T = -2.38) than laparoscopic surgeries. Knee/ankle/foot and arm discomfort increased with case length (0.18 [interquartile range, 0.02-0.3], T = 2.81) and (0.07 [interquartile range, 0.01-0.14], p = .03), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Surgeons performing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy experienced less neck, shoulder, and back discomfort when surgery was performed robotically.
Copyright © 2015 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ergonomics; Laparoscopic; Robotic; Sacrocolpopexy

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25315401     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  18 in total

1.  Short-Term Clinical Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Robotic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Authors:  Ying Kong; Shougen Cao; Xiaodong Liu; Zequn Li; Liankai Wang; Cunlong Lu; Shuai Shen; Houxin Zhu; Yanbing Zhou
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 2.  Robotic Sacrocolpopexy-Is It the Treatment of Choice for Advanced Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse?

Authors:  Janine L Oliver; Ja-Hong Kim
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis.

Authors:  Walaa F Abdelmoaty; Christy M Dunst; Chris Neighorn; Lee L Swanstrom; Chet W Hammill
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Kamran P Sajadi; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 14.432

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

Review 6.  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

7.  Systematic review of measurement tools to assess surgeons' intraoperative cognitive workload.

Authors:  R D Dias; M C Ngo-Howard; M T Boskovski; M A Zenati; S J Yule
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Socioeconomic factors and parity of access to robotic surgery in a county health system.

Authors:  Leah Carey Tatebe; Regan Gray; Ken Tatebe; Fernando Garcia; Bradley Putty
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-02-28

9.  Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Camille L Stewart; Philip H G Ituarte; Kurt A Melstrom; Susanne G Warner; Laleh G Melstrom; Lily L Lai; Yuman Fong; Yanghee Woo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

Authors:  Rana M Higgins; Matthew J Frelich; Matthew E Bosler; Jon C Gould
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.