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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 2/2017

01-02-2017 | Review

Musculoskeletal pain among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review

Authors: Tina Dalager, Karen Søgaard, Katrine Tholstrup Bech, Ole Mogensen, Pernille Tine Jensen

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Musculoskeletal pain is the most common occupational disease in Europe. Surgeons with awkward and static working postures are no exception. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy has been postulated to be superior to conventional laparoscopy regarding the ergonomic strain for surgeons. In this review, we aimed to systematically evaluate the existing literature comparing the two surgical modalities.

Methods

A systematic literature search was employed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library in spring 2015. Inclusion criteria were as follows: English language, full text available, original data, and comparative data on surgeons’ physical workload with robotic-assisted laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy. Studies only describing a single surgical modality were excluded. We applied the checklist, STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), to assess the quality of reporting of the included studies. Semi-quantitative comparisons were made.

Results

In total, 2685 records were screened and 15 articles were included in the analysis. All studies were observational with sample sizes ranging from one single surgeon to 250 questionnaire responses. None of the studies fully fulfilled the criteria of STROBE, with an average score of 13 (range 10–16) out of 18.

Discussion

Results, mainly self-reported measures, suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopy is less strenuous compared with conventional laparoscopy. However, results are limited by the large methodological heterogeneity and a high risk of bias. We advocate for further high-quality exposure studies to assess the potential ergonomic deficits related to different minimally invasive surgical techniques. In addition, future intervention studies should evaluate possible means to alleviate and prevent musculoskeletal pain among surgeons.
Literature
1.
Schneider E, Irastorza X (2010) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the EU. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) pp 1–184
2.
Craven R, Franasiak J, Mosaly P, Gehrig PA (2013) Ergonomic deficits in robotic gynecologic oncology surgery: a need for intervention. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20:648–655CrossRefPubMed
3.
Ruitenburg MM, Frings-Dresen MH, Sluiter JK (2013) Physical job demands and related health complaints among surgeons. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 86:271–279CrossRefPubMed
4.
Stomberg MW, Tronstad SE, Hedberg K, Bengtsson J, Jonsson P, Johansen L, Lindvall B (2010) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders when performing laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 20:49–53CrossRef
5.
6.
Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27:5331–5336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Nilsson G, Larsson S, Johnsson F (2000) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open fundoplication: blind evaluation of recovery and discharge period. Br J Surg 87:873–878CrossRefPubMed
8.
Franasiak J, Ko EM, Kidd J, Secord AA, Bell M, Boggess JF, Gehrig PA (2012) Physical strain and urgent need for ergonomic training among gynecologic oncologists who perform minimally invasive surgery. Gynecol Oncol 126:437–442CrossRefPubMed
9.
Reyes DAG, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2006) Minimal access surgery (MAS)-related surgeon morbidity syndromes. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 20:1–13CrossRef
10.
Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD (1999) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13:466–468CrossRefPubMed
11.
Szeto GPY, Ho P, Ting ACW, Poon JTC, Cheng SWK, Tsang RCC (2009) Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms in surgeons. J Occup Rehabil 19:175–184CrossRefPubMed
12.
Nguyen NT, Ho HS, Smith WD, Philipps C, Lewis C, De Vera RM, Berguer R (2001) An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons’ axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during laparoscopic and open surgery. Am J Surg 182:720–724CrossRefPubMed
13.
Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210:306–313CrossRefPubMed
14.
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 19:105–109CrossRefPubMed
15.
Uhrich ML, Underwood RA, Standeven JW, Soper NJ, Engsberg JR (2002) Assessment of fatigue, monitor placement, and surgical experience during simulated laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 16:635–639CrossRefPubMed
16.
Wauben LSGL, Van Veelen MA, Gossot D, Goossens RHM (2006) Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 20:1268–1274CrossRef
17.
Bagrodia A, Raman JD (2009) Ergonomics considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J Endourol 23:627–633CrossRefPubMed
18.
Berguer R, Smith W (2006) An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res 134:87–92CrossRefPubMed
19.
Franasiak J, Craven R, Mosaly P, Gehrig PA (2014) Feasibility and acceptance of a robotic surgery ergonomic training program. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 18(4):1–7CrossRef
20.
Hubert N, Gilles M, Desbrosses K, Meyer JP, Felblinger J, Hubert J (2013) Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 9:142–147CrossRef
21.
Lawson EH, Curet MJ, Sanchez BR, Schuster R, Berguer R (2007) Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. J Robot Surg 1:61–67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Giberti C, Gallo F, Francini L, Signori A, Testa M (2014) Musculoskeletal disorders among robotic surgeons: a questionnaire analysis. Arch Ital Urol Androl 86:95–98CrossRefPubMed
23.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457CrossRef
25.
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M, Initiative S (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 18:805–835CrossRefPubMed
26.
Szeto GPY, Poon JTC, Law WL (2013) A comparison of surgeon’s postural muscle activity during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery. J Robot Surg 7:305–308CrossRefPubMed
27.
Butler KA, Kapetanakis VE, Smith BE, Sanjak M, Verheijde JL, Chang YHH, Magtibay PM, Magrina JF (2013) Surgeon fatigue and postural stability: is robotic better than laparoscopic surgery? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23:343–346CrossRef
28.
Van Der Schatte Olivier RH, Van’t Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 23:1365–1371CrossRef
29.
McDonald ME, Ramirez PT, Munsell MF, Greer M, Burke WM, Naumann WT, Frumovitz M (2014) Physician pain and discomfort during minimally invasive gynecologic cancer surgery. Gynecol Oncol 134:243–247CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:234–238CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, Cho S, Awad MM (2014) Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 28:3379–3384CrossRefPubMed
32.
Lee GI, Lee MR, Clanton T, Sutton E, Park AE, Marohn MR (2014) Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries. Surg Endosc 28:456–465CrossRefPubMed
33.
Moore LJ, Wilson MR, McGrath JS, Waine E, Masters RS, Vine SJ (2014) Surgeons’ display reduced mental effort and workload while performing robotically assisted surgical tasks, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 29(9):2553–2560CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, Ousley J, Cho S, Awad MM (2014) FLS tasks can be used as an ergonomic discriminator between laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:2459–2465CrossRefPubMed
35.
Elhage O, Challacombe B, Shortland A, Dasgupta P (2015) An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort: a comparison between robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open approaches. BJU Int 115:274–281CrossRefPubMed
36.
Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Scott DJ (2011) Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 25:2141–2146CrossRefPubMed
37.
Essendrop M, Schibye B, Hansen K (2001) Reliability of isometric muscle strength tests for the trunk, hands and shoulders. Int J Ind Ergon 28:379–387CrossRef
38.
Hagg GM, Luttmann A, Jager M (2000) Methodologies for evaluating electromyographic field data in ergonomics. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10:301–312CrossRefPubMed
39.
McAtamney L, Nigel Corlett E (1993) RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 24:91–99CrossRefPubMed
40.
Hart S, Staveland L (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Hum Mental Workload 1:139–183CrossRef
41.
Wilson MR, Poolton JM, Malhotra N, Ngo K, Bright E, Masters RS (2011) Development and validation of a surgical workload measure: the surgery task load index (SURG-TLX). World J Surg 35:1961–1969CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Lux MM, Marshall M, Erturk E, Joseph JV (2010) Ergonomic evaluation and guidelines for use of the daVinci Robot system. J Endourol 24:371–375CrossRefPubMed
43.
Tjiam IM, Goossens RH, Schout BM, Koldewijn EL, Hendrikx AJ, Muijtjens AM, Scherpbier AJ, Witjes JA (2014) Ergonomics in endourology and laparoscopy: an overview of musculoskeletal problems in urology. J Endourol 28:605–611CrossRefPubMed
44.
Uhrich ML, Underwood RA, Standeven JW, Soper NJ, Engsberg JR (2002) Assessment of fatigue, monitor placement, and surgical experience during simulated laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 16:635–639CrossRef
45.
Miller K, Benden M, Pickens A, Shipp E, Zheng Q (2012) Ergonomics principles associated with laparoscopic surgeon injury/illness. Hum Factors 54:1087–1092CrossRefPubMed
46.
Epstein AJ, Groeneveld PW, Harhay MO, Yang F, Polsky D (2013) Impact of minimally invasive surgery on medical spending and employee absenteeism. JAMA Surg 148:641–647CrossRefPubMed
47.
Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, Shirley M, Vale L, Ramsay C, Pickard R (2013) Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol 64:361–369CrossRefPubMed
48.
Yu HY, Friedlander DF, Patel S, Hu JC (2013) The current status of robotic oncologic surgery. CA Cancer J Clin 63:45–56CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Musculoskeletal pain among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review
Authors
Tina Dalager
Karen Søgaard
Katrine Tholstrup Bech
Ole Mogensen
Pernille Tine Jensen
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5020-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 2/2017 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Efficacy of endoscopic management of leak after foregut surgery with endoscopic covered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS)

OriginalPaper

Temporary placement of a covered duodenal stent can avoid riskier anterograde biliary drainage when ERCP for obstructive jaundice fails due to duodenal invasion

OriginalPaper

Safety analysis of laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for selected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a propensity score-matched study

OriginalPaper

High educational impact of a national simulation-based urological curriculum including technical and non-technical skills

New Technology

Feasibility and reliability of pancreatic cancer staging using a new confocal non-fluorescent microscopy probe: a double-blind study in rats

OriginalPaper

Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires