Amer Haffar1, Chad A Krueger1, Graham S Goh1, Jess H Lonner2. 1. Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. 2. Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. Jess.lonner@rothmanortho.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Poor ergonomics and acute stress can impair surgical performance and cause work-related injuries. Robotic assistance may optimize these psychophysiological factors during UKA. This study compared surgeon physiologic stress and ergonomics during robotic-assisted UKA (rUKA) and conventional UKA (cUKA). METHODS: Cardiorespiratory and postural data from a single surgeon were recorded during 30 UKAs, (15 rUKAs, 15 cUKAs). Heart rate (HR), HR variability, respiratory rate (RR), minute ventilation and calorie expenditure were used to measure surgical strain. Intraoperative ergonomics were assessed by measuring flexion/extension/rotation of the neck and lumbar spine, and shoulder abduction/adduction. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 32.0 ± 7 min for cUKA and 45.9 ± 9 min for rUKA (p < 0.001). Mean neck flexion was - 23.4° ± 13° for rUKA and - 49.1° ± 18 for cUKA (p < 0.001), while mean lumbar flexion was - 20.3° ± 30° for rUKA and - 0.4° ± 68° for cUKA (p = 0.313). Mean lumbar flexion was similar; however, a significantly greater percentage of time was spent in lumbar flexion > 20° during cUKA. Bilateral shoulder abduction was significantly higher for rUKA. Mean calorie expenditure was 154 cal for rUKA and 89.1 cal for cUKA (p < 0.001). Mean HR was also higher for rUKA (88.7 vs. 84.7, p = 0.019). HR variability was slightly lower for rUKA (12.4) than for cUKA (13.4), although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.056). No difference in RR or minute ventilation was observed. CONCLUSION: rUKA resulted in less neck flexion but increased shoulder abduction, heart rate, and energy expenditure. The theoretical ergonomic and physiologic advantages of robotic assistance using a handheld sculpting device were not realized in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
PURPOSE: Poor ergonomics and acute stress can impair surgical performance and cause work-related injuries. Robotic assistance may optimize these psychophysiological factors during UKA. This study compared surgeon physiologic stress and ergonomics during robotic-assisted UKA (rUKA) and conventional UKA (cUKA). METHODS: Cardiorespiratory and postural data from a single surgeon were recorded during 30 UKAs, (15 rUKAs, 15 cUKAs). Heart rate (HR), HR variability, respiratory rate (RR), minute ventilation and calorie expenditure were used to measure surgical strain. Intraoperative ergonomics were assessed by measuring flexion/extension/rotation of the neck and lumbar spine, and shoulder abduction/adduction. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 32.0 ± 7 min for cUKA and 45.9 ± 9 min for rUKA (p < 0.001). Mean neck flexion was - 23.4° ± 13° for rUKA and - 49.1° ± 18 for cUKA (p < 0.001), while mean lumbar flexion was - 20.3° ± 30° for rUKA and - 0.4° ± 68° for cUKA (p = 0.313). Mean lumbar flexion was similar; however, a significantly greater percentage of time was spent in lumbar flexion > 20° during cUKA. Bilateral shoulder abduction was significantly higher for rUKA. Mean calorie expenditure was 154 cal for rUKA and 89.1 cal for cUKA (p < 0.001). Mean HR was also higher for rUKA (88.7 vs. 84.7, p = 0.019). HR variability was slightly lower for rUKA (12.4) than for cUKA (13.4), although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.056). No difference in RR or minute ventilation was observed. CONCLUSION: rUKA resulted in less neck flexion but increased shoulder abduction, heart rate, and energy expenditure. The theoretical ergonomic and physiologic advantages of robotic assistance using a handheld sculpting device were not realized in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Laura Y Scholl; Emily L Hampp; Kevin M de Souza; Ta-Cheng Chang; Matthew Deren; Zachary C Yenna; Nipun Sodhi; Michael A Mont; Geoffrey H Westrich Journal: J Knee Surg Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: David G Deckey; Nina J Lara; Matthew T Gulbrandsen; Jeffrey D Hassebrock; Mark J Spangehl; Joshua S Bingham Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2021-02-02