Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 12/2023

Open Access 23-10-2023

Impact of preferred surgical modality on surgeon wellness: a survey of workload, physical pain/discomfort, and neuromusculoskeletal disorders

Authors: Hamid Norasi, M. Susan Hallbeck, Enrique F. Elli, Matthew K. Tollefson, Kristi L. Harold, Raymond Pak

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 12/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We compared surgeons’ workload, physical discomfort, and neuromusculoskeletal disorders (NMSDs) across four surgical modalities: endoscopic, laparoscopic, open, and robot-assisted (da Vinci Surgical Systems).

Methods

An electronic survey was sent to the surgeons across an academic hospital system. The survey consisted of 47 questions including: (I) Demographics and anthropometrics; (II) The percentage of the procedural time that the surgeon spent on performing each surgical modality; (III) Physical and mental demand and physical discomfort; (IV) Neuromusculoskeletal symptoms including body part pain and NMSDs.

Results

Seventy-nine out of 245 surgeons completed the survey (32.2%) and 65 surgeons (82.2%) had a dominant surgical modality: 10 endoscopic, 15 laparoscopic, 26 open, and 14 robotic surgeons. Physical demand was the highest for open surgery and the lowest for endoscopic and robotic surgeries, (all p < 0.05). Open and robotic surgeries required the highest levels of mental workload followed by laparoscopic and endoscopic surgeries, respectively (all p < 0.05 except for the difference between robotic and laparoscopic that was not significant). Body part discomfort or pain (immediately after surgery) were lower in the shoulder for robotic surgeons compared to laparoscopic and open surgeons and in left fingers for robotic surgeons compared to endoscopic surgeons (all p < 0.05). The prevalence of NMSD was significantly lower in robotic surgeons (7%) compared to the other surgical modalities (between 60 and 67%) (all p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The distribution of NMSDs, workload, and physical discomfort varied significantly based on preferred surgical approach. Although robotic surgeons had fewer overall complaints, improvement in ergonomics of surgery are still warranted.

Graphical abstract

Literature
1.
go back to reference Epstein S et al (2018) Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons and interventionalists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 153(2):e174947CrossRefPubMed Epstein S et al (2018) Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons and interventionalists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 153(2):e174947CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Stucky CH et al (2018) Surgeon symptoms, strain, and selections: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical ergonomics. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 27:1–8CrossRefPubMed Stucky CH et al (2018) Surgeon symptoms, strain, and selections: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical ergonomics. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 27:1–8CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Park A et al (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210(3):306–313CrossRefPubMed Park A et al (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210(3):306–313CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Wohlauer M et al (2021) Physical pain and musculoskeletal discomfort in vascular surgeons. J Vasc Surg 73(4):1414–1421CrossRefPubMed Wohlauer M et al (2021) Physical pain and musculoskeletal discomfort in vascular surgeons. J Vasc Surg 73(4):1414–1421CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
go back to reference Cimbak N et al (2019) Burnout leads to premature surgeon retirement: a nationwide survey. J Surg Res 02(03):159–169CrossRef Cimbak N et al (2019) Burnout leads to premature surgeon retirement: a nationwide survey. J Surg Res 02(03):159–169CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Coleman DM et al (2021) Vascular surgeon wellness and burnout: a report from the society for vascular surgery wellness task force. J Vasc Surg 73(6):1841–1850CrossRefPubMed Coleman DM et al (2021) Vascular surgeon wellness and burnout: a report from the society for vascular surgery wellness task force. J Vasc Surg 73(6):1841–1850CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Mahoney ST et al (2020) Survey of the US surgeon workforce: practice characteristics, job satisfaction, and reasons for leaving surgery. J Am Coll Surg 230(3):283–293CrossRefPubMed Mahoney ST et al (2020) Survey of the US surgeon workforce: practice characteristics, job satisfaction, and reasons for leaving surgery. J Am Coll Surg 230(3):283–293CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Satiani B, Williams TE, Go MR (2009) Predicted shortage of vascular surgeons in the United States: population and workload analysis. J Vasc Surg 50(4):946–952CrossRefPubMed Satiani B, Williams TE, Go MR (2009) Predicted shortage of vascular surgeons in the United States: population and workload analysis. J Vasc Surg 50(4):946–952CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Giagio S et al (2019) A preventive program for work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons: outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg 270(6):969–975CrossRefPubMed Giagio S et al (2019) A preventive program for work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons: outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg 270(6):969–975CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Abdelall ES et al (2018) Mini breaks, many benefits: development and pilot testing of an intraoperative microbreak stretch web-application for surgeons. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 62(1):1042–1046CrossRef Abdelall ES et al (2018) Mini breaks, many benefits: development and pilot testing of an intraoperative microbreak stretch web-application for surgeons. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 62(1):1042–1046CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Coleman Wood KA et al (2018) Evidence-based intraoperative microbreak activities for reducing musculoskeletal injuries in the operating room. Work 60(4):649–659CrossRef Coleman Wood KA et al (2018) Evidence-based intraoperative microbreak activities for reducing musculoskeletal injuries in the operating room. Work 60(4):649–659CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hallbeck MS et al (2017) The impact of intraoperative microbreaks with exercises on surgeons: a multi-center cohort study. Appl Ergon 60:334–341CrossRefPubMed Hallbeck MS et al (2017) The impact of intraoperative microbreaks with exercises on surgeons: a multi-center cohort study. Appl Ergon 60:334–341CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Park AE et al (2017) Intraoperative “micro breaks” with targeted stretching enhance surgeon physical function and mental focus: a multicenter cohort study. Ann Surg 265(2):340–346CrossRefPubMed Park AE et al (2017) Intraoperative “micro breaks” with targeted stretching enhance surgeon physical function and mental focus: a multicenter cohort study. Ann Surg 265(2):340–346CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Cha JS et al (2019) Identifying barriers and facilitators of exoskeleton implementation in the operating room. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 63(1):1113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cha JS et al (2019) Identifying barriers and facilitators of exoskeleton implementation in the operating room. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 63(1):1113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Cha JS et al (2020) Supporting surgical teams: identifying needs and barriers for exoskeleton implementation in the operating room. Hum Factors 62(3):377–390CrossRefPubMed Cha JS et al (2020) Supporting surgical teams: identifying needs and barriers for exoskeleton implementation in the operating room. Hum Factors 62(3):377–390CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Wang T et al (2021) Introducing exoskeletons into the operating room: a pilot study with vascular surgeons. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 65(1):1376–1380CrossRef Wang T et al (2021) Introducing exoskeletons into the operating room: a pilot study with vascular surgeons. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 65(1):1376–1380CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Wang R et al (2017) Which causes more ergonomic stress: laparoscopic or open surgery? Surg Endosc 31(8):3286–3290CrossRefPubMed Wang R et al (2017) Which causes more ergonomic stress: laparoscopic or open surgery? Surg Endosc 31(8):3286–3290CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Norasi H et al (2021) Intraoperative posture and workload assessment in vascular surgery. Appl Ergon 92:103344CrossRefPubMed Norasi H et al (2021) Intraoperative posture and workload assessment in vascular surgery. Appl Ergon 92:103344CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Bagrodia A, Raman J (2009) Ergonomic considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J Endourol/Endourol Soc 23:627–633CrossRef Bagrodia A, Raman J (2009) Ergonomic considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J Endourol/Endourol Soc 23:627–633CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Wee IJY, Kuo LJ, Ngu JC (2020) A systematic review of the true benefit of robotic surgery: ergonomics. Int J Med Robot 16(4):e2113CrossRefPubMed Wee IJY, Kuo LJ, Ngu JC (2020) A systematic review of the true benefit of robotic surgery: ergonomics. Int J Med Robot 16(4):e2113CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Plerhoples TA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wren SM (2012) The aching surgeon: a survey of physical discomfort and symptoms following open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 6(1):65–72CrossRefPubMed Plerhoples TA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wren SM (2012) The aching surgeon: a survey of physical discomfort and symptoms following open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 6(1):65–72CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Tarr ME et al (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(2):234–238CrossRefPubMed Tarr ME et al (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(2):234–238CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Armijo PR et al (2019) Ergonomics of minimally invasive surgery: an analysis of muscle effort and fatigue in the operating room between laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 33(7):2323–2331CrossRefPubMed Armijo PR et al (2019) Ergonomics of minimally invasive surgery: an analysis of muscle effort and fatigue in the operating room between laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 33(7):2323–2331CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
go back to reference Lee GI et al (2017) Surgeons’ physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study. Surg Endosc 31(4):1697–1706CrossRefPubMed Lee GI et al (2017) Surgeons’ physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study. Surg Endosc 31(4):1697–1706CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Wilson MR et al (2011) Development and validation of a surgical workload measure: the surgery task load index (SURG-TLX). World J Surg 35(9):1961–1969CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wilson MR et al (2011) Development and validation of a surgical workload measure: the surgery task load index (SURG-TLX). World J Surg 35(9):1961–1969CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Kuorinka I et al (1987) Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon 18(3):233–237CrossRefPubMed Kuorinka I et al (1987) Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon 18(3):233–237CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Norasi H et al (2022) Intraoperative workload during robotic radical prostatectomy: comparison between multi-port da Vinci Xi and single port da Vinci SP robots. Appl Ergon 104:103826CrossRefPubMed Norasi H et al (2022) Intraoperative workload during robotic radical prostatectomy: comparison between multi-port da Vinci Xi and single port da Vinci SP robots. Appl Ergon 104:103826CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Mazur LM et al (2013) Subjective and objective quantification of physician’s workload and performance during radiation therapy planning tasks. Pract Radiat Oncol 3(4):e171–e177CrossRefPubMed Mazur LM et al (2013) Subjective and objective quantification of physician’s workload and performance during radiation therapy planning tasks. Pract Radiat Oncol 3(4):e171–e177CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Mazur LM et al (2014) Relating physician’s workload with errors during radiation therapy planning. Pract Radiat Oncol 4(2):71–75CrossRefPubMed Mazur LM et al (2014) Relating physician’s workload with errors during radiation therapy planning. Pract Radiat Oncol 4(2):71–75CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
go back to reference Lux MM et al (2010) Ergonomic evaluation and guidelines for use of the daVinci Robot system. J Endourol 24(3):371–375CrossRefPubMed Lux MM et al (2010) Ergonomic evaluation and guidelines for use of the daVinci Robot system. J Endourol 24(3):371–375CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Hokenstad ED et al (2021) Ergonomic robotic console configuration in gynecologic surgery: an interventional study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(4):850–859CrossRef Hokenstad ED et al (2021) Ergonomic robotic console configuration in gynecologic surgery: an interventional study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(4):850–859CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Allespach H et al (2020) Practice longer and stronger: maximizing the physical well-being of surgical residents with targeted ergonomics training. J Surg Educ 77(5):1024–1027CrossRefPubMed Allespach H et al (2020) Practice longer and stronger: maximizing the physical well-being of surgical residents with targeted ergonomics training. J Surg Educ 77(5):1024–1027CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Impact of preferred surgical modality on surgeon wellness: a survey of workload, physical pain/discomfort, and neuromusculoskeletal disorders
Authors
Hamid Norasi
M. Susan Hallbeck
Enrique F. Elli
Matthew K. Tollefson
Kristi L. Harold
Raymond Pak
Publication date
23-10-2023
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 12/2023
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10485-0

Other articles of this Issue 12/2023

Surgical Endoscopy 12/2023 Go to the issue