Ergonomic aspects of five different types of laparoscopic instrument handles under dynamic conditions with respect to specific laparoscopic tasks: An electromyographic-based study
- First Online:
- 417 Downloads
The ergonomic deficiencies of various minimally invasive surgery (MIS) instrument handles are well-known. In the past, many studies have been performed to gain a better understanding of ergonomics in MIS. The current study investigates muscle strain during various dynamic tasks with different instrument handles.
Five different handle designs were tested: the axial handle (Aesculap), the vario handle (own model), multifunctional and ring handles (both Karl Storz), and the shank handle (Wilo). Ten subjects without any surgical training tested the following instrument functions: precise dynamic movement, rotation of the closed instrument, and simultaneous opening and closing of the effector. During these three trials, task performance (errors / duration) and the electromyographic activity of the hand and lower arm muscles were measured.
Regarding the errors and the time required to carry out the tasks, the five handles showed similar results. The muscle activity was lowest for the precise dynamic movement task and highest during the rotation task. The axial handle required significantly more muscle activity than all other handles.
On the basis of these data, it was possible to construct characteristic muscle activation patterns for each handle. However, these patterns were not task specific. Accordingly, they may form a basis to improve the ergonomics of MIS handles with regard to muscle strain.
Key wordsLaparoscopy Surgical instruments Ergonomics Human factors Electromyography
- 4.Corlett, EN 1995
The evaluation of posture and its effectsWilson, JRCorlett, EN eds. Evaluation of human work. A practical ergonomics methodologyTaylor & FrancisLondon689692Google Scholar
- 8.Laparoscopic Surgery Update1997Reduce fatigue and discomfort: tips to improve operating room setupLaparosc Surg Update597100Google Scholar
- 10.Matern U, Giebmeyer C, Bergmann R, Faist M (2001) Ergonomic aspects of different handles for minimally invasive surgery—an EMG-based study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th annual meeting, pp 1269–1273Google Scholar
- 15.Patkin M (1997) A check-list for handle design. Ergonomics Australia On-Line 11(2), http://www.uq.edu.au/eaol/Apr97/handle.html
- 16.Patkin, M, Isabel, L 1993
Ergonomics and laparoscopic general surgeryGraber, JNSchultz, LSPietrafitta, JJHickok, DF eds. Laparoscopic abdominal surgeryMcGraw-HillNew YorkGoogle Scholar
- 18.Rau, G 1977Anwendung der Elektromyographie bei der Beurteilung körperlicher Momentan-und LangzeitbeanspruchungZ Arb Wiss31112120Google Scholar
- 19.Rohmert, W 1973
Physische BeanspruchungSchmidtke, H eds. Ergonomie 1Grundlagen menschlicher Arbeit und Leistung. Carl Hanser VerlagMunich225255Google Scholar
- 21.Veelen, MA, Meijer, DW 1999Ergonomics and design of laparoscopic instruments: results of a survey among laparoscopic surgeonsJ Laparoendosc Adv Surg Techiques A9481489Google Scholar