Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 1/2022

01-01-2022

Who is hurting? A prospective study of surgeon ergonomics

Authors: Camille Stewart, Mustafa Raoof, Yuman Fong, Thanh Dellinger, Susanne Warner

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is a paucity of prospective data related to surgeon ergonomics, which affects career longevity. Robotic surgical systems may mitigate pain and workload. We hypothesized that ergonomic outcomes would vary based on surgeon height and gender, and the relative benefit of robotic surgery would vary based on these demographics.

Methods

Surgeons received questionnaires to fill out immediately before and after surgery to enable calculation of pain scores and task load. Surgeons who were ≤ 66 inches tall were considered “short”. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed where appropriate using Stata-MP version 14.2 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX).

Results

There were 124 questionnaires given to 20 surgeons; 97 (78%) were returned, and 12 (12%) laparoscopic operations were excluded, leaving 85 (69%) questionnaires for further analysis: 33 (38%) from short surgeons, and 24 (28%) from women, for 30 (35%) robotic and 55 (65%) open operations. There were 44/85 (52%) surgeons who reported worse pain after surgery. Overall pain scores (1.1 ± 2.6 vs 1.5 ± 2.6, p = 0.70) were similar for robotic and open operations. In multivariable analysis, greater surgeon pain scores were significantly associated with short surgeons (p < 0.001), male surgeons (p < 0.001), and long operative times (p = 0.03). Physical demand was lower for robot vs open operations (median 10 vs 13, p = 0.03). When short surgeons (p = 0.04) and male surgeons (p = 0.03) were examined as sub-groups, lower physical demand during robotic operations persisted, but was lost when only examining tall surgeons (p = 0.07) and female surgeons (p = 0.13).

Conclusions

Short surgeons and male surgeons reported significantly more pain after both open and robotic operations but had less physical demand when using the robotic system. Future work should focus on mitigation of surgeon height-related factors and seek to understand ergonomic gender differences beyond height.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Stucky C-CH, Cromwell KD, Voss RK et al (2018) Surgeon symptoms, strain, and selections: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical ergonomics. Ann Med Surg 27:1–8CrossRef Stucky C-CH, Cromwell KD, Voss RK et al (2018) Surgeon symptoms, strain, and selections: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical ergonomics. Ann Med Surg 27:1–8CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Wauben L, Van Veelen M, Gossot D, Goossens R (2006) Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc Other Interv Techn 20(8):1268–1274CrossRef Wauben L, Van Veelen M, Gossot D, Goossens R (2006) Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc Other Interv Techn 20(8):1268–1274CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Barbash GI (2010) New technology and health care costs–the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701CrossRef Barbash GI (2010) New technology and health care costs–the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Sutton E, Irvin M, Zeigler C, Lee G, Park A (2014) The ergonomics of women in surgery. Surg Endosc 28(4):1051–1055CrossRef Sutton E, Irvin M, Zeigler C, Lee G, Park A (2014) The ergonomics of women in surgery. Surg Endosc 28(4):1051–1055CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Corlett EN, Bishop R (1976) A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics 19(2):175–182CrossRef Corlett EN, Bishop R (1976) A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics 19(2):175–182CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hart SG (2006) NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Sage publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, pp 904–908 Hart SG (2006) NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Sage publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, pp 904–908
14.
go back to reference Fryar CD, Kruszan-Moran D, Gu Q, Ogden CL (2018) Mean body weight, weight, waist circumference, and body mass index among adults: United States, 1999–2000 through 2015–2016 Fryar CD, Kruszan-Moran D, Gu Q, Ogden CL (2018) Mean body weight, weight, waist circumference, and body mass index among adults: United States, 1999–2000 through 2015–2016
15.
go back to reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) Defining Adult Overweight and Obesity. Accessed Sept 28, 2020 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) Defining Adult Overweight and Obesity. Accessed Sept 28, 2020
16.
go back to reference Lee G, Lee M, Green I, Allaf M, Marohn M (2017) Surgeons’ physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study. Surg Endosc 31(4):1697–1706CrossRef Lee G, Lee M, Green I, Allaf M, Marohn M (2017) Surgeons’ physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study. Surg Endosc 31(4):1697–1706CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY, Lau C, Wilson TG (2009) Training of urologic oncology fellows does not adversely impact outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 23(2):301–306CrossRef Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY, Lau C, Wilson TG (2009) Training of urologic oncology fellows does not adversely impact outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 23(2):301–306CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Stewart CL, Dumitra S, Nota C et al (2019) Hospital factors strongly influence robotic use in general surgery. Surgery 166(5):867–872CrossRef Stewart CL, Dumitra S, Nota C et al (2019) Hospital factors strongly influence robotic use in general surgery. Surgery 166(5):867–872CrossRef
19.
go back to reference BenMessaoud C, Kharrazi H, MacDorman KF (2011) Facilitators and barriers to adopting robotic-assisted surgery: contextualizing the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. PLoS ONE 6(1):e16395CrossRef BenMessaoud C, Kharrazi H, MacDorman KF (2011) Facilitators and barriers to adopting robotic-assisted surgery: contextualizing the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. PLoS ONE 6(1):e16395CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Nguyen NT, Ho HS, Smith WD et al (2001) An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons’ axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during laparoscopic and open surgery. Am J Surg 182(6):720–724CrossRef Nguyen NT, Ho HS, Smith WD et al (2001) An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons’ axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during laparoscopic and open surgery. Am J Surg 182(6):720–724CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Aghilinejad M, Ehsani AA, Talebi A, Koohpayehzadeh J, Dehghan N (2016) Ergonomic risk factors and musculoskeletal symptoms in surgeons with three types of surgery: Open, laparoscopic, and microsurgery. Med J Islam Repub Iran 30:467PubMedPubMedCentral Aghilinejad M, Ehsani AA, Talebi A, Koohpayehzadeh J, Dehghan N (2016) Ergonomic risk factors and musculoskeletal symptoms in surgeons with three types of surgery: Open, laparoscopic, and microsurgery. Med J Islam Repub Iran 30:467PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Armijo PR, Huang C-K, High R, Leon M, Siu K-C, Oleynikov D (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):2323–2331CrossRef Armijo PR, Huang C-K, High R, Leon M, Siu K-C, Oleynikov D (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):2323–2331CrossRef
23.
go back to reference 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(5):648–655CrossRef 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(5):648–655CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Who is hurting? A prospective study of surgeon ergonomics
Authors
Camille Stewart
Mustafa Raoof
Yuman Fong
Thanh Dellinger
Susanne Warner
Publication date
01-01-2022
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08274-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2022 Go to the issue