Literature DB >> 27515836

Surgeons' physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study.

G I Lee1, M R Lee2, I Green3, M Allaf4, M R Marohn2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is commonly believed that robotic surgery systems provide surgeons with an ergonomically sound work environment; however, the actual experience of surgeons practicing robotic surgery (RS) has not been thoroughly researched. In this ergonomics survey study, we investigated surgeons' physical symptom reports and their association with factors including demographics, specialties, and robotic systems.
METHODS: Four hundred and thirty-two surgeons regularly practicing RS completed this comprehensive survey comprising 20 questions in four categories: demographics, systems, ergonomics, and physical symptoms. Chi-square and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-six surgeons (56.1 %) reported physical symptoms or discomfort. Among those symptoms, neck stiffness, finger, and eye fatigues were the most common. With the newest robot, eye symptom rate was considerably reduced, while neck and finger symptoms did not improve significantly. A high rate of lower back stiffness was correlated with higher annual robotic case volume, and eye symptoms were more common with longer years practicing robotic surgery (p < 0.05). The symptom report rate from urology surgeons was significantly higher than other specialties (p < 0.05). Noticeably, surgeons with higher confidence and helpfulness levels with their ergonomic settings reported lower symptom report rates. Symptoms were not correlated with age and gender.
CONCLUSION: Although RS provides relatively better ergonomics, this study demonstrates that 56.1 % of regularly practicing robotic surgeons still experience related physical symptoms or discomfort. In addition to system improvement, surgeon education in optimizing the ergonomic settings may be necessary to maximize the ergonomic benefits in RS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Da Vinci; Discomfort; Ergonomics; Physical symptom; Robotic surgery; Survey

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27515836     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5160-y

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


  39 in total

1.  Mental workload and stress perceived by novice operators in the laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive surgical interfaces.

Authors:  Martina I Klein; Joel S Warm; Michael A Riley; Gerald Matthews; Charles Doarn; James F Donovan; Krishnanath Gaitonde
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 2.942

2.  Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William W Hope; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments.

Authors:  Kamran Ahmed; Mohammad Shamim Khan; Amit Vats; Kamal Nagpal; Oliver Priest; Vanash Patel; Joshua A Vecht; Hutan Ashrafian; Guang-Zhong Yang; Thanos Athanasiou; Ara Darzi
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2009-09-06       Impact factor: 6.071

4.  The evolving role of robotic colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Junjun Ma; Parul J Shukla; Jeffrey W Milsom
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  The da Vinci(®) Surgical System overcomes innate hand dominance.

Authors:  Phillip Mucksavage; David C Kerbl; Jason Y Lee
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2011-07-11       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty:recent developments in efficacy, outcomes, and new techniques.

Authors:  Casey A Seideman; Aditya Bagrodia; Jeffrey Gahan; Jeffrey A Cadeddu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Robotic lobectomy for lung cancer: evolution in technique and technology.

Authors:  Franca M A Melfi; Olivia Fanucchi; Federico Davini; Gaetano Romano; Marco Lucchi; Paolo Dini; Marcello C Ambrogi; Alfredo Mussi
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2014-03-09       Impact factor: 4.191

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.  Robotic-enhanced arterial revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease.

Authors:  R Cichon; U Kappert; J Schneider; I Schramm; V Gulielmos; S M Tugtekin; S Schüler
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  The effect of transoral robotic surgery on short-term outcomes and cost of care after oropharyngeal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Jeremy D Richmon; Harry Quon; Christine G Gourin
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 3.325

View more
  18 in total

1.  Robotic pelvic dissection as surgical treatment of complicated diverticulitis in elective settings: a comparative study with fully laparoscopic procedure.

Authors:  Diletta Cassini; Norma Depalma; Michele Grieco; Roberto Cirocchi; Farshad Manoochehri; Gianandrea Baldazzi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 4.584

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

3.  A query on da Vinci robot console preferences: insights for the novice surgeon.

Authors:  Igor Sorokin; Jeffrey A Cadeddu
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-11-15

4.  Early operative outcomes of endoscopic (eTEP access) robotic-assisted retromuscular abdominal wall hernia repair.

Authors:  I Belyansky; H Reza Zahiri; Z Sanford; A S Weltz; A Park
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-07-04       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Morbidity and mortality in complex robot-assisted hiatal hernia surgery: 7-year experience in a high-volume center.

Authors:  Alexander C Mertens; Rob C Tolboom; Hana Zavrtanik; Werner A Draaisma; Ivo A M J Broeders
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Robotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Ajita S Prabhu; Alfredo Carbonell; William Hope; Jeremy Warren; Rana Higgins; Brian Jacob; Jeffrey Blatnik; Ivy Haskins; Hemasat Alkhatib; Luciano Tastaldi; Aldo Fafaj; Chao Tu; Michael J Rosen
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 14.766

7.  Ergonomics of minimally invasive surgery: an analysis of muscle effort and fatigue in the operating room between laparoscopic and robotic surgery.

Authors:  Priscila R Armijo; Chun-Kai Huang; Robin High; Melissa Leon; Ka-Chun Siu; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics.

Authors:  Shing Wai Wong; Zhen Hao Ang; Phillip F Yang; Philip Crowe
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-04-22

Review 9.  Surgical ergonomics for urologists: a practical guide.

Authors:  Andrew T Gabrielson; Marisa M Clifton; Christian P Pavlovich; Michael J Biles; Mitchell Huang; Jacqueline Agnew; Phillip M Pierorazio; Brian R Matlaga; Petar Bajic; Zeyad R Schwen
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  Postural ergonomics and work-related musculoskeletal disorders in neurosurgery: lessons from an international survey.

Authors:  Georgios Mavrovounis; Torstein R Meling; Jesus Lafuente; Konstantinos N Fountas; Andreas K Demetriades
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.216

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.