Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Experience implication in subjective surgical ergonomics comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgeries

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Laparoscopic surgery (LS) may lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) and an increase in physical and mental workloads to the surgeon. Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) should improve the ergonomy of the surgeon. This study assesses the experience influence in surgical ergonomics between LS and RAS.

Methods

LS and RAS lasting more than 60 min of effective operative time were compared. During the surgical procedure, the physical discomfort was evaluated using the Borg scale. At the end, the mental workload was evaluated using the NASA-TLX index. After global analysis, the experienced and young surgeons were assessed.

Results

88 RAS and 82 LS were evaluated. During LS, the physical discomfort was significantly higher in all segments, and the pain increased significantly during the procedure in all segments compared to that evaluated in the RAS (p < 0.05). Forearms and the back were the most painful. The young surgeons did not display any improvement in the physical ergonomics of the RAS compared to the LS. Concerning the mental ergonomics, the overall workload and performance were significantly greater during the LS compared to the RAS (p < 0.05). For the young surgeons, the overall workload, the effort, the mental and the physical demands were greater during LS (p < 0.05). For the experienced surgeons, the physical demand was lower during the RAS compared to the LS (p < 0.05). However, the experienced surgeons expressed a feeling of greater performance after the LS (p < 0.01). RAS significantly reduces the onset of MSDs compared to LS, especially for the experienced surgeons.

Conclusion

RAS significantly reduces the onset of MSDs compared to LS, especially for the experienced surgeons.

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. Reyes DA, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2006) Minimal access surgery (MAS)-related surgeon morbidity syndromes. Surg Endosc 20:1–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210:306–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, Godinez C, Meenaghan N, Catania R et al (2009) Ergonomic risk associated with assisting in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 23:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carswell CM, Clarke D, Seales WB (2005) Assessing mental workload during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 12:80–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 28:456–465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Keyserling WM (2010) A computer-aided system to evaluate postural stress in the workplace. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47:641–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee YH, Chiou WK (1995) Ergonomic analysis of working posture in nursing personnel: example of modified Ovako Working Analysis System application. Res Nurs Health 18:67–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Esposito C, Najmaldin A, Schier F, Yamataka A, Ferro M, Riccipetitoni G et al (2014) Work-related upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in pediatric minimally invasive surgery: a multicentric survey comparing laparoscopic and sils ergonomy. Pediatr Surg Int 30:395–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 1:61–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee G, Kavic SM, George IM, Park AE (2007) Postural instability does not necessarily correlate to poor performance: case in point. Surg Endosc 21:471–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 22:234–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 25:2141–2146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Klein MI, Warm JS, Riley MA, Matthews G, Doarn C, Donovan JF et al (2012) Mental workload and stress perceived by novice operators in the laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive surgical interfaces. J Endourol Endourol Soc 26:1089–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Borg G (1990) Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scand J Work Environ Health 16(Suppl 1):55–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee Y-H, Liu B-S (2003) Inflight workload assessment: comparison of subjective and physiological measurements. Aviat Space Environ Med 74:1078–1084

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hart S, Staveland L (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): result of empirical and theoretical research. In: Human mental workload. Hancock PA, Meshkati N. North Holland Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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 MRCAS 9:142–147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee MR, Lee GI (2017) Does a robotic surgery approach offer optimal ergonomics to gynecologic surgeons ? a comprehensive ergonomics survey study in gynecologic robotic surgery. J Gynecol Oncol 28:e70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Holloway RW, Ahmad S (2012) Robotic-assisted surgery in the management of endometrial cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ballantyne GH, Moll F (2003) The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin North Am 83:1293–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JR, Dunne JB, Scott DJ (2010) Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc 24:377–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, Cho S, Awad MM (2014) Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 28:3379–3384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mouraviev V, Klein M, Schommer E, Thiel DD, Samavedi S, Kumar A et al (2016) Urology residents experience comparable workload profiles when performing live porcine nephrectomies and robotic surgery virtual reality training modules. J Robot Surg 10:49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. M. Derieppe (Department of Radiology, Leiden UMC, Leiden, the Netherlands) for proofreading the manuscript, and the colleagues of the Department of Urology, the Department of Paediatric Surgery and the Department of Gynaecology of CHU Tours for their fruitful contributions.

Funding

This study was realized without any funding, only with surgeon personal investment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service d’Obstétrique, de Gynécologie et de Médecine Fœtale, Centre Hospitalier Régional de Tours, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, 37044, Tours Cedex 9, France

    V. Mendes, Henri Marret & Thomas Hebert

  2. Université de Tours, 10 boulevard Tonnellé, BP 3223, 37032, Tours cedex 1, France

    V. Mendes, Franck Bruyere, Aurelien Binet, Hubert Lardy & Henri Marret

  3. Service d’Urologie et de Transplantation rénale, Centre Hospitalier Régional de Tours, 2 boulevard Tonnellé, Tours, France

    Franck Bruyere

  4. UMR 1253, iBrain, Université de Tours, Inserm, Tours, France

    Jean Michel Escoffre

  5. Service de Chirurgie Pédiatrique, Centre Hospitalier Régional de Tours, 49 boulevard Beranger, 37044, Tours, France

    Aurelien Binet & Hubert Lardy

  6. Service de Chirurgie Oncologique, Institut Cancérologie de Lorraine, Université de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

    Frederic Marchal

Authors
  1. V. Mendes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franck Bruyere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean Michel Escoffre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aurelien Binet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hubert Lardy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Henri Marret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Frederic Marchal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Thomas Hebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Mendes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Hebert reports personal fees from Nordic Pharma, personal fees from Intuitive Surgical, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Nordic Pharma, personal fees from Intuitive Surgical, outside the submitted work. Drs. Mendes, Bruyere, Escoffre, Binet, Lardy, Marchal and Marret have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study assessed only the ergonomy of the surgeon, so hospital institutional review board indicate no patient approvals are required. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mendes, V., Bruyere, F., Escoffre, J.M. et al. Experience implication in subjective surgical ergonomics comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgeries. J Robotic Surg 14, 115–121 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00933-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00933-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation