Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgeons’ physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

It is commonly believed that robotic surgery systems provide surgeons with an ergonomically sound work environment; however, the actual experience of surgeons practicing robotic surgery (RS) has not been thoroughly researched. In this ergonomics survey study, we investigated surgeons’ physical symptom reports and their association with factors including demographics, specialties, and robotic systems.

Methods

Four hundred and thirty-two surgeons regularly practicing RS completed this comprehensive survey comprising 20 questions in four categories: demographics, systems, ergonomics, and physical symptoms. Chi-square and multinomial logistic regression analyses were used for statistical analysis.

Results

Two hundred and thirty-six surgeons (56.1 %) reported physical symptoms or discomfort. Among those symptoms, neck stiffness, finger, and eye fatigues were the most common. With the newest robot, eye symptom rate was considerably reduced, while neck and finger symptoms did not improve significantly. A high rate of lower back stiffness was correlated with higher annual robotic case volume, and eye symptoms were more common with longer years practicing robotic surgery (p < 0.05). The symptom report rate from urology surgeons was significantly higher than other specialties (p < 0.05). Noticeably, surgeons with higher confidence and helpfulness levels with their ergonomic settings reported lower symptom report rates. Symptoms were not correlated with age and gender.

Conclusion

Although RS provides relatively better ergonomics, this study demonstrates that 56.1 % of regularly practicing robotic surgeons still experience related physical symptoms or discomfort. In addition to system improvement, surgeon education in optimizing the ergonomic settings may be necessary to maximize the ergonomic benefits in RS.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schreuder HW, Verheijen RH (2009) Robotic surgery. BJOG 116(2):198–213. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02038.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmed K, Khan MS, Vats A, Nagpal K, Priest O, Patel V, Vecht JA, Ashrafian H, Yang GZ, Athanasiou T, Darzi A (2009) Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments. Int J Surg 7(5):431–440. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2009.08.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Seideman CA, Bagrodia A, Gahan J, Cadeddu JA (2013) Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty: recent developments in efficacy, outcomes, and new techniques. Curr Urol Rep 14(1):37–40. doi:10.1007/s11934-012-0291-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel MN, Bhandari M, Menon M, Rogers CG (2009) Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 103(9):1296–1311. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08584.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting–the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174(1):269–272. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000162082.12962.40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khan MS, Shah SS, Hemel A, Rimington P, Dasgupta P (2008) Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS 4(3):197–201. doi:10.1002/rcs.207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Griffin L, Feinglass J, Garrett A, Henson A, Cohen L, Chaudhari A, Lin A (2013) Postoperative outcomes after robotic versus abdominal myomectomy. JSLS 17(3):407–413. doi:10.4293/108680813X13693422521557

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, Brubaker L, Bresee C, Kenton K (2014) Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 123(1):5–12. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Martino MA, Berger EA, McFetridge JT, Shubella J, Gosciniak G, Wejkszner T, Kainz GF, Patriarco J, Thomas MB, Boulay R (2014) A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic vs. non-robotic approaches. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(3):389–393. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ma J, Shukla PJ, Milsom JW (2011) The evolving role of robotic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54(3):376. doi:10.1007/DCR.0b013e318204a8d5 (author reply 376–377)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98(2):125–129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cichon R, Kappert U, Schneider J, Schramm I, Gulielmos V, Tugtekin SM, Schuler S (2000) Robotic-enhanced arterial revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg 70(3):1060–1062

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Seco M, Cao C, Modi P, Bannon PG, Wilson MK, Vallely MP, Phan K, Misfeld M, Mohr F, Yan TD (2013) Systematic review of robotic minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2(6):704–716. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2013.10.18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Melfi FM, Fanucchi O, Davini F, Romano G, Lucchi M, Dini P, Ambrogi MC, Mussi A (2014) Robotic lobectomy for lung cancer: evolution in technique and technology. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu079

    Google Scholar 

  15. Richmon JD, Quon H, Gourin CG (2014) The effect of transoral robotic surgery on short-term outcomes and cost of care after oropharyngeal cancer surgery. Laryngoscope 124(1):165–171. doi:10.1002/lary.24358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr, Desai SC, Quon H (2009) Transoral robotic surgery: does the ends justify the means? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 17(2):126–131. doi:10.1097/MOO.0b013e32832924f5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boggess JF (2007) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: evolution of a new surgical paradigm. J Robot Surg 1(1):31–37

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eckstein FS, Bonilla LF, Schaff H, Englberger L, Windecker S, Hindrichs P, Carrel TP (2002) Two generations of the St. Jude Medical ATG coronary connector systems for coronary artery anastomoses in coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 74(4):S1363–S1367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Manchana T, Sirisabya N, Vasuratna A, Termrungruanglert W, Tresukosol D, Wisawasukmongchol W (2014) Feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for gynecologic cancers. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15(13):5359–5364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Lee JY (2011) The da Vinci((R)) Surgical System overcomes innate hand dominance. J Endourol 25(8):1385–1388. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Elhage O, Murphy D, Challacombe B, Shortland A, Dasgupta P (2007) Ergonomics in minimally invasive surgery. Int J Clin Pract 61(2):186–188. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2006.01243.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee J, Kang SW, Jung JJ, Choi UJ, Yun JH, Nam KH, Soh EY, Chung WY (2011) Multicenter study of robotic thyroidectomy: short-term postoperative outcomes and surgeon ergonomic considerations. Ann Surg Oncol 18(9):2538–2547. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1628-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(3):437–442. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.05.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(2):243–247. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.05.019

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Plerhoples TA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wren SM (2012) The aching surgeon: a survey of physical discomfort and symptoms following open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 6:65–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210(3):306–313. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.10.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee EC, Rafiq A, Merrell R, Ackerman R, Dennerlein JT (2005) Ergonomics and human factors in endoscopic surgery: a comparison of manual vs telerobotic simulation systems. Surg Endosc 19(8):1064–1070. doi:10.1007/s00464-004-8213-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JR 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(2):377–382. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0578-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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(7):2141–2146. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1512-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 9(2):142–147. doi:10.1002/rcs.1489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Klein MI, Warm JS, Riley MA, Matthews G, Doarn C, Donovan JF, Gaitonde K (2012) Mental workload and stress perceived by novice operators in the laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive surgical interfaces. J Endourol 26(8):1089–1094. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van der Schatte Olivier RH, Van’t Hullenaar CD, Ruurda JP, Broeders IA (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23(6):1365–1371. doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0184-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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(1):87–92. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2005.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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(2):456–465. doi:10.1007/s00464-013-3213-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lawson LH, 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(1):61–67

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 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):648–655. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.04.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Van Veelen MA, Jakimowicz JJ, Kazemier G (2004) Improved physical ergonomics of laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 13(3):161–166. doi:10.1080/13645700410033193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lux MM, Marshall M, Erturk E, Joseph JV (2010) Ergonomic evaluation and guidelines for use of the daVinci Robot system. J Endourol 24(3):371–375. doi:10.1089/end.2009.0197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the thoughtful and careful assistance of Karyn Rhyder in editing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street Blalock 1210, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    G. I. Lee, M. R. Lee & M. R. Marohn

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    I. Green

  3. Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    M. Allaf

Authors
  1. G. I. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. R. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Allaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. R. Marohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. I. Lee.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

G. I. Lee, M. R. Lee, I. Green, M. Allaf, and M. R. Marohn have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, G.I., Lee, M.R., Green, I. et al. Surgeons’ physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study. Surg Endosc 31, 1697–1706 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5160-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5160-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation