Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2012

01-12-2012 | Original Article

Surgeon activity in robotic versus abdominal gynecologic surgery

Authors: Sarah A. Collins, David M. O’Sullivan, Paul K. Tulikangas

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 4/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

One proposed advantage of robotic surgery is improved ergonomics and decreased surgeon fatigue. The objective of this study is to quantify and compare the physical activity of surgeons during robotic and abdominal surgery using accelerometers. Eight gynecologic surgeons who perform both abdominal and robotic surgery were the subjects of this study. Each wore an accelerometer on the hip during one procedure performed abdominally and during a similar procedure performed robotically. Activity parameters analyzed were average activity counts (AAC) and percentage of time spent in sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous activity. The paired t-test was used to evaluate differences between robotic and abdominal procedures. AAC was similar between the robotic and abdominal approaches (mean ± SD: 83.9 ± 50.9 versus 79.1 ± 37.8 counts/min, respectively, P = 0.820). The majority of activity spent in robotic and abdominal surgery was sedentary (79.0% ± 5.9% versus 80.9% ± 8.6%, respectively; P = 0.625) followed by light activity (14.7% ± 3.9% versus 12.8% ± 6.1%, respectively; P = 0.541) and then by moderate activity (6.3% ± 3.4% versus 6.3% ± 2.8%, respectively; P = 0.981). None of the activity for either surgical approach qualified as vigorous. There were no differences in activity parameters by surgical approach. Accelerometer data demonstrate that surgeon activity expenditure is similar in robotic and abdominal surgery. Future studies comparing measures of physical activity and strain between surgical approaches are needed to determine whether the robot’s improved ergonomics translates to improved surgeon experience.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Loos MJ, Scheltinga MR, Mulders LG, Roumen RM (2008) The pfannenstiel incision as a source of chronic pain. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):839–846PubMedCrossRef Loos MJ, Scheltinga MR, Mulders LG, Roumen RM (2008) The pfannenstiel incision as a source of chronic pain. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):839–846PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C (2005) Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(5):1752–1758PubMedCrossRef Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C (2005) Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(5):1752–1758PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Patel M, O’Sullivan D, Tulikangas PK (2008) A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 33:16 Patel M, O’Sullivan D, Tulikangas PK (2008) A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 33:16
4.
go back to reference Rosen M, Garcia-Ruiz A, Malm J, Mayes JT, Steiger E, Ponsky J (2001) Laparoscopic hernia repair enhances early return of physical work capacity. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 11(1):28–33PubMed Rosen M, Garcia-Ruiz A, Malm J, Mayes JT, Steiger E, Ponsky J (2001) Laparoscopic hernia repair enhances early return of physical work capacity. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 11(1):28–33PubMed
5.
go back to reference Berguer R, Smith WD, Chung YH (2001) Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery. Surg Endosc 15:1204–1207 Berguer R, Smith WD, Chung YH (2001) Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery. Surg Endosc 15:1204–1207
6.
go back to reference Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD (1999) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endoscopy 13:466–468 Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD (1999) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endoscopy 13:466–468
7.
go back to reference Berguer R, Rab GT, Abu-Ghaida H, Alarcon A, Chung J (1997) A comparison of surgeons’ posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures. Surg Endos 11:139–342 Berguer R, Rab GT, Abu-Ghaida H, Alarcon A, Chung J (1997) A comparison of surgeons’ posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures. Surg Endos 11:139–342
8.
go back to reference Vereczkei A (2003) Laparoscopic surgery and ergonomics: it’s time to think of ourselves as well. Surg Endosc 17:1680–1682 Vereczkei A (2003) Laparoscopic surgery and ergonomics: it’s time to think of ourselves as well. Surg Endosc 17:1680–1682
9.
go back to reference Mitre AI, Duarte RJ, Arap MA, Coelho RF, Lpes RI, Trigo-Rocha F, Srougi M (2009) Ergonomic aspects related to surgeon position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 23(2):259–262PubMedCrossRef Mitre AI, Duarte RJ, Arap MA, Coelho RF, Lpes RI, Trigo-Rocha F, Srougi M (2009) Ergonomic aspects related to surgeon position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 23(2):259–262PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, Godinez C, Meenaghan N, Catania R, Park A (2009) Ergonomic risk associated with assisting in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 23:182–88 Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, Godinez C, Meenaghan N, Catania R, Park A (2009) Ergonomic risk associated with assisting in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 23:182–88
11.
go back to reference Narula BK, Watson WC, Davis SS, Hinshaw K, Needleman BJ, Mikami DJ, Hazey JW, Winston JH, Muscarella P, Rubin M, Patel V, Melvin WS (2007) A computerized analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 21:2258–2261 Narula BK, Watson WC, Davis SS, Hinshaw K, Needleman BJ, Mikami DJ, Hazey JW, Winston JH, Muscarella P, Rubin M, Patel V, Melvin WS (2007) A computerized analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 21:2258–2261
12.
go back to reference Galleano R, Carter F, Brown S, Frank T, Cuschieri A (2006) Can armrests improve comfort and task performance in laparoscopic surgery? Annal Surg 243(3):329–333CrossRef Galleano R, Carter F, Brown S, Frank T, Cuschieri A (2006) Can armrests improve comfort and task performance in laparoscopic surgery? Annal Surg 243(3):329–333CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Van der Schatte Olivier RH, van’t Hullenaar CPD, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1365–1371 Van der Schatte Olivier RH, van’t Hullenaar CPD, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1365–1371
14.
go back to reference Lee G, Kavic SM, George IM, Park AE (2007) Postural instability does not necessarily correlate to poor performance: case in point. Surg Endosc 21:471–474 Lee G, Kavic SM, George IM, Park AE (2007) Postural instability does not necessarily correlate to poor performance: case in point. Surg Endosc 21:471–474
15.
go back to reference Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff C, van Veelen MA, Pierie JPEN (2008) Ergonomic assessment of neck posture in minimally invasive surgery suite during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:2421–2427 Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff C, van Veelen MA, Pierie JPEN (2008) Ergonomic assessment of neck posture in minimally invasive surgery suite during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:2421–2427
Metadata
Title
Surgeon activity in robotic versus abdominal gynecologic surgery
Authors
Sarah A. Collins
David M. O’Sullivan
Paul K. Tulikangas
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 4/2012
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0317-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2012

Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2012 Go to the issue