Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 12/2017

01-12-2017

Ergonomics perspective for identifying and reducing internal operative flow disruption for laparoscopic urological surgery

Authors: Latif Al-Hakim, Jiaquan Xiao, Shomik Sengupta

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 12/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study is to examine operative flow disruption that occurs inside the surgical field, (internal operative flow disruption (OFD)), during urological laparoscopies, and to relate those events to external ergonomics environment in terms of monitor location, level of instruments’ handles, and location of surgical team members. According to the our best knowledge, this is the first study of its kind.

Methods

A combination of real and video-aided observational study was conducted in the operating rooms at hospitals in Australia and China. Brain storming sessions were first conducted to identify the main internal OFD events, and the observable reasons, potential external, and latent ergonomic factors were listed. A prospective observational study was then conducted. The observer’s records and the related video records of internal surgical fields were analysed. Procedures were categorised into groups based on similarity in ergonomics environment.

Results

The mapping process revealed 39 types of internal OFD events resulted from six reasons. A total of 24 procedures were selected and arranged into two groups, each with twelve procedures. Group A was carried out under satisfactory ergonomics environment, while Group B was conducted under unsatisfactory ergonomics environment. A total of 1178 OFD events were detected delaying the total observed operative times (2966 min) by 220 min (7.43%). Average OFD/h in group A was less than 15, while in group B about 29 OFD/h.

Conclusion

There are two main latent ergonomics factors affecting the surgeon’s performance; non-physiological posture and long-period static posture. The delays and number of internal OFD were nearly doubled where procedures were conducted under unsatisfactory external ergonomics environment. Some events such as stopping operation and irrelevant conversations during long procedures may have a positive influence on the surgeon’s performance.
Literature
1.
Undre S, Arora S, Sevdalis N (2009) Surgical performance, human error and patient safety in urological surgery. Br J Med Surg Urol 2:2–10CrossRef
2.
Sevdalis N, Forrest D, Undre S, Darzi A, Vincent C (2008) Annoyances, disruptions, and interruptions in surgery: the disruptions in surgery index (DiSI). World J Surg 32:1643–1650CrossRefPubMed
3.
Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM (2007) Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665CrossRefPubMed
4.
Al-Hakim L (2008) Surgical disruption: information quality perspective. Int J Inf Qual 2:192–204CrossRef
5.
Etchells E, O’Neill C, Bernstein M (2003) Patient safety in surgery: error detection and prevention. World J Surg 27:936–941CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. A report of the Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
7.
Fumo MJ, Hemal AK, Menon M (2007) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. In: Naito S, Hirao Y, Terachi T (eds) Endourological management of urogenital carcinoma. Springer, Tokyo, pp 175–190
8.
Gjeraa K, Spanager L, Konge L, Petersen RH (2016) Non-technical skills in minimally invasive surgery teams: a systematic review. Surgical Endoscopy, Online version
9.
Zeng B, Martinec DV, Cassera MA, Swanström LL (2008) A qantitative study of disruption in the operating room during laparoscopic antireflux surgeru. Surg Endosc 22:2171–2177CrossRef
10.
Arora S, Hull L, Sevdalis N, Tierney T, Nestel D, Woloshynowych M, Darzi A, Kneebone R (2010) Factors compromising safety in surgery: stressful events in the operating room. Am J Surg 199:60–65CrossRefPubMed
11.
Arora S, Sevdalis E (2011) A systemic analysis of disruption in operating room: reply. World J Surg 35:931–932CrossRef
12.
Mishra A, Catchpole KR, Dale T, McCulloch P (2008) The influence of non-technical performance on technical outcome in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:68–73CrossRefPubMed
13.
Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Error enacted during endoscopic surgery: a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon 29:409–414CrossRefPubMed
14.
Al-Hakim L (2011) The impact of preventable disruption on the operative time for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 25:3385–3392CrossRefPubMed
15.
Vereczkei A, Feussner H, Negele T, Fritzsche F, Seitz T, Bubb H, Horvath OP (2004) Ergonomic assessment of the static stress confronted by surgeons during laparoscopic cholechstectomy. Surg Endosc 18:1118–1122CrossRefPubMed
16.
Jaschinski W, Heuer H, Kylian H (1998) Preferred position of visual displays relative to the eyes: a field study of visual strain and individual differences. Ergonomics 41:1034–1049CrossRefPubMed
17.
van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, Totte ER, Pierie JP (2009) Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally inasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc 23:1279–1285CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Wong H, Forrest D, Healey A, Shirafkan H, Hanna G, Vincent C, Sevdalis N (2011) Information needs in operating room teams: what is right, what is wrong and wat is needed? Surg Endosc 25:1913–1920CrossRefPubMed
20.
Al-Hakim L, Gong XY (2011) On the day of surgery: how long does preventable desruption prolong the patient journey? Int J Health Care Qual Assur Appear 25(4):322–342CrossRef
21.
Sevdalis N, Healey AN, Vincent CA (2007) Distracting communications in the operating theatre. J Eval Clin Pract 13:390–394CrossRefPubMed
22.
Al-Hakim L, Arora S, Sevdalis N (2016) Impact of disruptions on anaesthetic workflow during anaesthesia induction and patient positioning. Eur J Anaesthesiol 33:1–7CrossRef
23.
Zheng B, Swanström LL, MacKenzie CL (2007) A laboratory study on anticipatory movement in laparoscopic surgery: a behavioral indicator for team collaboration. Surg Endosc 21:935–940CrossRefPubMed
24.
Moorthy K, Munz Y, Adams S, Pandey V, Darzi A (2005) A human factors analysis of technical and team skills among surgical trainees during procedural simulations in a simulated operating theatre. Ann Surg 242:631–639CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
He W, Ni S, Chen G, Jiang X, Zheng B (2013) The composition of surgical teams in the operating room and its impact on surgical team performance in China. Surg Endos 28:1473–1478CrossRef
26.
Shorrock S, Kirwan B (2002) Development and application of a human error identification tool for air traffic control. Appl Ergon 33:319–336CrossRefPubMed
27.
Catchpole KR, Anthony EB, Giddings MD, Wilkinson M, Hirst G, Dale T, Marc R, de Leval MD (2007) Improving patient safety by identifying latent failures in successful operations. Surgery 142:102–110CrossRefPubMed
28.
Catchpole KR, Giddings AE, de Leval MR, Peek GJ, Godden PJ, Utley M, Gallivan S, Hirst G, Dale T (2006) Identification of systems failures in successful paediatric cardiac surgery. Ergonomics 49:567–588CrossRefPubMed
29.
Al-Hakim L, Maiping T, Watanachote MD, Sengupta S (2015) Human error identification tool for laparoscopic surgery: motion economy perspective. Appl Ergon 50:113–125CrossRefPubMed
30.
Adams R, Warner P, Hubbard B, Goulding T (2004) Decreasing turnaround time between general surgery cases: a six sigma initiative. JONA 34:140–148CrossRef
31.
van Veelen MA, Kazemier G, Koopman J, Goossens RH, Meijer DW (2002) Assessment of the ergonomically optimal operating surface height for laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 12:47–52CrossRef
32.
Manasnayakorn S, Cuschieri A, Hanna GB (2009) Ergonomic assessment of optimum operating table height for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:783–789CrossRefPubMed
33.
Jaschinski W, Heuer H, Kylian H (1999) A procedure to determine the individually comfortable position of visual displays relative to the eyes. Ergonomics 42:535–549CrossRefPubMed
34.
van den Hombergh P, Künzi B, Elwyn G, Doremalen J, Akkermans R, Grol R, Wensing M (2009) High workload and job stress are associated with lower practice performance in general practice: an observational study in 239 general practices in the Netherlands. BMC Health Serv Res 9:1–8CrossRef
35.
Weigl M, Antoniadis S, Chiapponi C, Bruns C, Sevdalis N (2014) The impact of intra-operative interruptions on surgeons’ perceived workload: an observational study in elective general and orthopedic surgery. World J Surg 29:145–153
36.
Kao L, Thomas E (2008) Navigating towards improved surgical safety using aviation-based strategies. J Surg Res 145:327–335CrossRefPubMed
37.
Al-Hakim L, Sevdalis N, Arora S (2012) On surgical disruption rating, expected operation time or actual wasted time - some comments on Gillepsie et al (2012). BMJ Qual Saf 21:532CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Ergonomics perspective for identifying and reducing internal operative flow disruption for laparoscopic urological surgery
Authors
Latif Al-Hakim
Jiaquan Xiao
Shomik Sengupta
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5568-z

Other articles of this Issue 12/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 12/2017 Go to the issue

New Technology

A novel surgery technique: non-visual dissection for establishing the operating space during total endoscopic thyroidectomy

OriginalPaper

The clinical outcomes and risk factors associated with incomplete endoscopic resection of rectal carcinoid tumor

OriginalPaper

Prediction of surgical outcomes of laparoscopic liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma by defining surgical difficulty

OriginalPaper

Comparison of the multichannel intraluminal impedance pH and conventional pH for measuring esophageal acid exposure: a propensity score-matched analysis

OriginalPaper

A prospective randomized study of the use of an ultrathin colonoscope versus a pediatric colonoscope in sedation-optional colonoscopy

Review

Safety and effectiveness of day-surgery laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still uncertain: meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials based on GRADE approach