Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

With minimally invasive surgery (MIS), a man–machine environment was brought into the operating room, which created mental and physical challenges for the operating team. The science of ergonomics analyzes these challenges and formulates guidelines for creating a work environment that is safe and comfortable for its operators while effectiveness and efficiency of the process are maintained. This review aimed to formulate the ergonomic challenges related to monitor positioning in MIS. Background and guidelines are formulated for optimal ergonomic monitor positioning within the possibilities of the modern MIS suite, using multiple monitors suspended from the ceiling.

Methods

All evidence-based experimental ergonomic studies conducted in the fields of laparoscopic surgery and applied ergonomics for other professions working with a display were identified by PubMed searches and selected for quality and applicability. Data from ergonomic studies were evaluated in terms of effectiveness and efficiency as well as comfort and safety aspects. Recommendations for individual monitor positioning are formulated to create a personal balance between these two ergonomic aspects.

Results

Misalignment in the eye–hand–target axis because of limited freedom in monitor positioning is recognized as an important ergonomic drawback during MIS. Realignment of the eye–hand–target axis improves personal values of comfort and safety as well as procedural values of effectiveness and efficiency.

Conclusions

Monitor position is an important ergonomic factor during MIS. In the horizontal plain, the monitor should be straight in front of each person and aligned with the forearm–instrument motor axis to avoid axial rotation of the spine. In the sagittal plain, the monitor should be positioned lower than eye level to avoid neck extension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berguer R (1999) Surgery and ergonomics. Arch Surg 134:1011–1016

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sanders MS, McCormick EJ (1993) Human factors in engineering and design, 7th edn. McGraw Hill Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alarcon A, Berguer R (1996) A comparison of operating room crowding between open and laparoscopic operations. Surg Endosc 10:916–919

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kenyon TA, Urbach DR, Speer JB, Waterman-Hukari B, Foraker GF, Hansen PD, Swanstrom LL (2001) Dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites increase operating room efficiency. Surg Endosc 15:1140–1143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Veelen MA, Nederlof EA, Goossens RH, Schot CJ, Jakimowicz JJ (2003) Ergonomic problems encountered by the medical team related to products used for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 17(7):1077–1081

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, Ritchie K, Sheehy NP (1998) An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. Endoscopy 30:617–620

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ballantyne GH (2002) The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zehetner J, Kaltenbacher A, Wayand W, Shamiyeh A (2006) Screen height as an ergonomic factor in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 20:139–141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Berguer R, Rab GT, Abu-Ghaida H, Alarcon A, Chung J (1997) A comparison of surgeons’ posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 11:139–142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD (1999) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13:466–468

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hemal AK, Srinivas M, Charles AR (2001) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopy. J Endourol 15:499–503

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 182:720–724

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 16:635–639

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Berci G, Phillips EH, Fujita F (2004) The operating room of the future: what, when, and why? Surg Endosc 18:1–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Herron DM, Gagner M, Kenyon TL, Swanstrom LL (2001) The minimally invasive surgical suite enters the 21st century: a discussion of critical design elements. Surg Endosc 15:415–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Veelen MA, Jakimowicz JJ, Goossens RH, Meijer DW, Bussmann JB (2002) Evaluation of the usability of two types of image display systems during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 16:674–678

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Erfanian K, Luks FI, Kurkchubasche AG, Wesselhoeft CW Jr, Tracy TF Jr (2003) In-line image projection accelerates task performance in laparoscopic appendectomy. J Pediatr Surg 38:1059–1062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Ann Surg 227:481–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Haveran LA, Novitsky YW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Taylor M, Gallagher-Dorval K, Schmidt R, Kelly JJ, Litwin DE (2007) Optimizing laparoscopic task efficiency: the role of camera and monitor positions. Surg Endosc 21:980–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Matern U, Faist M, Kehl K, Giebmeyer C, Buess G (2005) Monitor position in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 19:436–440

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Omar AM, Wade NJ, Brown SI, Cuschieri A (2005) Assessing the benefits of “gaze-down” display location in complex tasks. Surg Endosc 19:105–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring: review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 16:1389–1402

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Boppart SA, Deutsch TF, Rattner DW (1999) Optical imaging technology in minimally invasive surgery: current status and future directions. Surg Endosc 13:718–722

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown SI, Frank TG, El Shallaly G, Cuschieri A (2003) Comparison of conventional and gaze-down imaging in laparoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 17:586–590

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Holden J, Frank TG, Cuschieri A (1997) Developing technology for suspended imaging for minimal access surgery. Semin Laparosc Surg 4:74–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schier F, Beyerlein S, Gauderer MW (2002) Imaging for endoscopic surgery: new developments applicable to pediatric surgical interventions. Pediatr Surg Int 18:459–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff C, Van Veelen MA, Pierie JPEN. Ergonomic assessment of neck posture in the minimally invasive surgery suite during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc, accepted for publication, July 12, 2008 [Epub ahead of print]

  28. Jaschinski-Kruza W (1991) Eyestrain in VDU users: viewing distance and the resting position of ocular muscles. Hum Factors 33:69–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Pickett CW, Lees RE (1991) A cross-sectional study of health complaints among 79 data entry operators using video display terminals. J Soc Occup Med 41:113–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sommerich CM, Joines SM, Psihogios JP (2001) Effects of computer monitor viewing angle and related factors on strain, performance, and preference outcomes. Hum Factors 43:39–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 41:1034–1049

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Menozzi M, von Buol A, Krueger H, Miege C (1994) Direction of gaze and comfort: discovering the relation for the ergonomic optimization of visual tasks. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 14:393–399

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sauter SL, Schleifer LM, Knutson SJ (1991) Work posture, workstation design, and musculoskeletal discomfort in a VDT data entry task. Hum Factors 33:151–167

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. McGill SM, Hughson RL, Parks K (2000) Lumbar erector spinae oxygenation during prolonged contractions: implications for prolonged work. Ergonomics 43:486–493

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Emam TA, Hanna G, Cuschieri A (2002) Ergonomic principles of task alignment, visual display, and direction of execution of laparoscopic bowel suturing. Surg Endosc 16:267–271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Bauer W, Wittig T (1998) Influence of screen and copy holder positions on head posture, muscle activity and user judgment. Appl Ergon 29:185–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Seghers J, Jochem A, Spaepen A (2003) Posture, muscle activity, and muscle fatigue in prolonged VDT work at different screen height settings. Ergonomics 46:714–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Turville KL, Psihogios JP, Ulmer TR, Mirka GA (1998) The effects of video display terminal height on the operator: a comparison of the 15-degree and 40-degree recommendations. Appl Ergon 29:239–246

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Svensson HF, Svensson OK (2001) The influence of the viewing angle on neck load during work with video display units. J Rehabil Med 33:133–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank J.M.P. Collins for reviewing the text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Leeuwarden Medical Center, PO Box 888, 8901 BR, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

    M. J. van Det, C. Hoff, E. R. Totté & J. P. E. N. Pierie

  2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Free University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    W. J. H. J. Meijerink

Authors
  1. M. J. van Det
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. J. H. J. Meijerink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Hoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. R. Totté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. P. E. N. Pierie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. J. van Det.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Det, M.J., Meijerink, W.J.H.J., Hoff, C. et al. Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc 23, 1279–1285 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0148-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0148-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation