Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 8/2014

01-08-2014

FLS tasks can be used as an ergonomic discriminator between laparoscopic and robotic surgery

Authors: Ahmed M. Zihni, Ikechukwu Ohu, Jaime A. Cavallo, Jenny Ousley, Sohyung Cho, Michael M. Awad

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 8/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Robotic surgery may result in ergonomic benefits to surgeons. In this pilot study, we utilize surface electromyography (sEMG) to describe a method for identifying ergonomic differences between laparoscopic and robotic platforms using validated Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) tasks. We hypothesize that FLS task performance on laparoscopic and robotic surgical platforms will produce significant differences in mean muscle activation, as quantified by sEMG.

Methods

Six right-hand-dominant subjects with varying experience performed FLS peg transfer (PT), pattern cutting (PC), and intracorporeal suturing (IS) tasks on laparoscopic and robotic platforms. sEMG measurements were obtained from each subject’s bilateral bicep, tricep, deltoid, and trapezius muscles. EMG measurements were normalized to the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) of each muscle of each subject. Subjects repeated each task three times per platform, and mean values used for pooled analysis. Average normalized muscle activation (%MVC) was calculated for each muscle group in all subjects for each FLS task. We compared mean %MVC values with paired t tests and considered differences with a p value less than 0.05 to be statistically significant.

Results

Mean activation of right bicep (2.7 %MVC lap, 1.3 %MVC robotic, p = 0.019) and right deltoid muscles (2.4 %MVC lap, 1.0 %MVC robotic, p = 0.019) were significantly elevated during the laparoscopic compared to the robotic IS task. The mean activation of the right trapezius muscle was significantly elevated during robotic compared to the laparoscopic PT (1.6 %MVC lap, 3.5 %MVC robotic, p = 0.040) and PC (1.3 %MVC lap, 3.6 %MVC robotic, p = 0.0018) tasks.

Conclusions

FLS tasks are validated, readily available instruments that are feasible for use in demonstrating ergonomic differences between surgical platforms. In this study, we used FLS tasks to compare mean muscle activation of four muscle groups during laparoscopic and robotic task performance. FLS tasks can serve as the basis for larger studies to further describe ergonomic differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bhogal RH, Athwal R, Durkin D, Deakin M, Cheruvu CN (2008) Comparison between open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease. World J Surg 32:2371–2374PubMedCrossRef Bhogal RH, Athwal R, Durkin D, Deakin M, Cheruvu CN (2008) Comparison between open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease. World J Surg 32:2371–2374PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Li MZ, Lian L, Xiao LB, Wu WH, He YL, Song XM (2012) Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 204:779–786PubMedCrossRef Li MZ, Lian L, Xiao LB, Wu WH, He YL, Song XM (2012) Laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 204:779–786PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Sari V, Nieboer TE, Vierhout ME, Stegeman DF, Kluivers KB (2010) The operation room as a hostile environment for surgeons: physical complaints during and after laparoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19:105–109PubMedCrossRef Sari V, Nieboer TE, Vierhout ME, Stegeman DF, Kluivers KB (2010) The operation room as a hostile environment for surgeons: physical complaints during and after laparoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19:105–109PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210:306–313PubMedCrossRef Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210:306–313PubMedCrossRef
6.
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 15:1204–1207PubMedCrossRef Berguer R, Smith WD, Chung YH (2001) Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery. Surg Endosc 15:1204–1207PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Berguer R, Chen J, Smith WD (2003) A comparison of the physical effort required for laparoscopic and open surgical techniques. Arch Surg 138:967–970PubMedCrossRef Berguer R, Chen J, Smith WD (2003) A comparison of the physical effort required for laparoscopic and open surgical techniques. Arch Surg 138:967–970PubMedCrossRef
8.
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 23:182–188PubMedCrossRef 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 23:182–188PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Berguer R (1998) Surgical technology and the ergonomics of laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc 12:458–462PubMedCrossRef Berguer R (1998) Surgical technology and the ergonomics of laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc 12:458–462PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference O’Sullivan OE, O’Reilly BA (2012) Robot-assisted surgery: impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J 23:1163–1173PubMedCrossRef O’Sullivan OE, O’Reilly BA (2012) Robot-assisted surgery: impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J 23:1163–1173PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Kumar P, Kommu SS, Challacombe BJ, Dasgup-Ta P (2010) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) prostatectomy–robotic and conventional approach. Minerva Urol Nefrol 62:425–430PubMed Kumar P, Kommu SS, Challacombe BJ, Dasgup-Ta P (2010) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) prostatectomy–robotic and conventional approach. Minerva Urol Nefrol 62:425–430PubMed
12.
go back to reference Lunca S, Bouras G, Stanescu AC (2005) Gastrointestinal robot-assisted surgery. A current perspective. Rom J Gastroenterol 14:385–391PubMed Lunca S, Bouras G, Stanescu AC (2005) Gastrointestinal robot-assisted surgery. A current perspective. Rom J Gastroenterol 14:385–391PubMed
13.
go back to reference Xia T, Baird C, Jallo G, Hayes K, Nakajima N, Hata N, Kazanzides P (2008) An integrated system for planning, navigation and robotic assistance for skull base surgery. Int J Med Robot 4:321–330PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Xia T, Baird C, Jallo G, Hayes K, Nakajima N, Hata N, Kazanzides P (2008) An integrated system for planning, navigation and robotic assistance for skull base surgery. Int J Med Robot 4:321–330PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Frick AC, Falcone T (2009) Robotics in gynecologic surgery. Minerva Ginecol 61:187–199PubMed Frick AC, Falcone T (2009) Robotics in gynecologic surgery. Minerva Ginecol 61:187–199PubMed
15.
go back to reference Wright AS, Gould JC, Melvin WS (2004) Computer-assisted robotic antireflux surgery. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 50:253–260PubMed Wright AS, Gould JC, Melvin WS (2004) Computer-assisted robotic antireflux surgery. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol 50:253–260PubMed
16.
go back to reference Anton D, Gerr F, Meyers A, Cook TM, Rosecrance JC, Reynolds J (2007) Effect of aviation snip design and task height on upper extremity muscular activity and wrist posture. J Occup Environ Hyg 4:99–113PubMedCrossRef Anton D, Gerr F, Meyers A, Cook TM, Rosecrance JC, Reynolds J (2007) Effect of aviation snip design and task height on upper extremity muscular activity and wrist posture. J Occup Environ Hyg 4:99–113PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Jones T, Kumar S (2008) Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in a repetitive sawmill occupation: trim-saw operator. Work 31:367–376PubMed Jones T, Kumar S (2008) Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in a repetitive sawmill occupation: trim-saw operator. Work 31:367–376PubMed
18.
go back to reference Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, Klein R, Park A (2007) Methodological infrastructure in surgical ergonomics: a review of tasks, models, and measurement systems. Surg Innov 14:153–167PubMedCrossRef Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, Klein R, Park A (2007) Methodological infrastructure in surgical ergonomics: a review of tasks, models, and measurement systems. Surg Innov 14:153–167PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Lofland KR, Mumby PB, Cassisi JE, Palumbo NL, Camic PM (1995) Assessment of lumbar EMG during static and dynamic activity in pain-free normals: implications for muscle scanning protocols. Biofeedback Self Regul 20:3–18PubMedCrossRef Lofland KR, Mumby PB, Cassisi JE, Palumbo NL, Camic PM (1995) Assessment of lumbar EMG during static and dynamic activity in pain-free normals: implications for muscle scanning protocols. Biofeedback Self Regul 20:3–18PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Edelman DA, Mattos MA, Bouwman DL (2012) Value of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery training in a fourth-year medical school advanced surgical skills elective. J Surg Res 177:207–210PubMedCrossRef Edelman DA, Mattos MA, Bouwman DL (2012) Value of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery training in a fourth-year medical school advanced surgical skills elective. J Surg Res 177:207–210PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Antosh DD, Auguste T, George EA, Sokol AI, Gutman RE, Iglesia CB, Desale SY, Park AJ (2013) Blinded assessment of operative performance after fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery in gynecology training. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20:353–359PubMedCrossRef Antosh DD, Auguste T, George EA, Sokol AI, Gutman RE, Iglesia CB, Desale SY, Park AJ (2013) Blinded assessment of operative performance after fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery in gynecology training. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20:353–359PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Sweet RM, Beach R, Sainfort F, Gupta P, Reihsen T, Poniatowski LH, McDougall EM (2011) Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association Basic Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery skills curriculum. J Endourol 26:190–196PubMedCrossRef Sweet RM, Beach R, Sainfort F, Gupta P, Reihsen T, Poniatowski LH, McDougall EM (2011) Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association Basic Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery skills curriculum. J Endourol 26:190–196PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Berguer R, Smith W (2006) An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res 134:87–92PubMedCrossRef Berguer R, Smith W (2006) An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res 134:87–92PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Lee GI, Lee MR, Clanton T, Sutton E, Park AE, Marohn MR (2013) Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries. Surg Endosc 28:456–465PubMedCrossRef Lee GI, Lee MR, Clanton T, Sutton E, Park AE, Marohn MR (2013) Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries. Surg Endosc 28:456–465PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ, Marks JM, Fried GM (2010) FLS and FES: comprehensive models of training and assessment. Surg Clin N Am 90:535–558PubMedCrossRef Vassiliou MC, Dunkin BJ, Marks JM, Fried GM (2010) FLS and FES: comprehensive models of training and assessment. Surg Clin N Am 90:535–558PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
FLS tasks can be used as an ergonomic discriminator between laparoscopic and robotic surgery
Authors
Ahmed M. Zihni
Ikechukwu Ohu
Jaime A. Cavallo
Jenny Ousley
Sohyung Cho
Michael M. Awad
Publication date
01-08-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 8/2014
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3497-7

Other articles of this Issue 8/2014

Surgical Endoscopy 8/2014 Go to the issue