Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 182–188

Ergonomic risk associated with assisting in minimally invasive surgery

  • Gyusung Lee
  • Tommy Lee
  • David Dexter
  • Carlos Godinez
  • Nora Meenaghan
  • Robert Catania
  • Adrian Park
Article

Abstract

Background

Given the physical risks associated with performing laparoscopic surgery, ergonomics to date has focused on the primary minimally invasive surgeon. Similar studies have not extended to other operating room staff. Simulation of the assistant’s role as camera holder and retractor during a Nissen fundoplication allowed investigation of the ergonomic risks involved in these tasks.

Methods

Seven subjects performed camera navigation and retraction tasks using a box trainer on an operating room table that simulated an adult patient in low lithotomy position. Each subject stood on force plates at the simulated patient’s left side. A laparoscope was introduced through a port into the training box with four 2-cm circles as rear-panel targets located in relation to the assistant as distal superior, proximal superior, distal inferior, and proximal inferior target effects. The subjects held the camera with their left hand, pointing it at a target. The task was to match the target to a circle overlaid on the monitor. Simultaneously, a grasper in the right hand grasped and pulled a panel-attached band. A minute signal moved the subject to the next target. Each trial had three four-target repetitions (phase effect). The subjects performed two separate trials: one while holding the camera from the top and one while holding it from the bottom (grip effect). A 4 × 3 × 2 (target × phase × grip) repeated-measures design provided statistics. Dividing the left force-plate vertical ground reaction forces (VGRF) by the total VGRF from both plates provided a weight-loading ratio (WLR).

Results

The WLR significantly increased (p < 0.005) with proximal targets (2 by 80% and 4 by 79%). The WLR decreased 75%, 74%, and 71% over time. No difference existed between the grip strategies (grip effect, p > 0.5).

Conclusions

A high-risk ergonomic situation is created by the assistant’s left or caudal leg disproportionately bearing 70–80% of body weight over time. A distance increase between the camera head location and the camera holder increases ergonomic risk. The phase effect was interpreted as a compensatory rebalancing to reduce ergonomic risk. Ergonomic solutions minimizing ergonomic risks associated with laparoscopic assistance should be considered.

Keywords

Camera assistant Ergonomics Force plate Laparoscopic assistance Postural analysis Simulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Bhatnager V, Drury CG, Schiro SG (1985) Posture, postural discomfort, and performance. Hum Factors 27:189–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liao MH, Drury CG (2000) Posture, discomfort, and performance in a VDT task. Ergonomics 43:345–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Wely P (1970) Design and disease. Appl Ergon 1:262–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keyserling RM (1986) A computer-aided system to evaluate postural stress in the workplace. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47:641–649PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winter DA (1995) Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. J Biomech 3:193–214Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gage WH, Winter DA, Frank JS, Adkin AL (2004) Kinematic and kinemtic validity of the inverted pendulum model in quiet standing. Gait Posture 19:124–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corlett EN, Bishop RP (1976) A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics 19:175–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kant IJ, de Jong LC, Van Rijssen-Moll M, Borm PJ (1992) A survey of static and dynamic work postures of operating room staff. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 63:423–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patkin M, Isabel L (1995) Ergonomics, engineering, and surgery of endosurgical dissection. J R Coll Surg Edinb 40:120–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reyes DAG, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2006) Minimal access surgery (MAS)-related surgeon morbidity syndromes. Surg Endosc 20:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD (1999) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13:466–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carswell CM, Duncan C, Seales WB (2005) Assessing mental workload during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 12:80–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, Klein R, Park AE (2007) Methodological infrastructure in surgical ergonomics: a review of tasks, models, and measurement systems. Surg Innov 14:153–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Person JG, Hodgson AJ, Nagy AG (2001) Automated high-frequency posture sampling for ergonomic assessment of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 15:997–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 11:139–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gillette JC, Quick NE, Adrales GL, Shapiro R, Park AE (2003) Changes in posture mechanics associated with different types of minimally invasive surgical training exercises. Surg Endosc 17:259–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee G, Kavic SM, George IM, Park AE (2006) Correlation between postural stability and performance time during fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) tasks. Br J Surg 93(Suppl):S206Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savoie S, Tanguay S, Centomo H, Beauchamp G, Anidjar M, Prince F (2007) Postural control during laparoscopic surgical tasks. Am J Surg 193:498–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee G, Park AE (2007) Development of a more robust tool for postural stability analysis of laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 22:1087–1092Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee G, Kavic SM, George IM, Park AE (2007) Postural instability does not necessarily correlate to poor performance: case in point. Surg Endosc 21:471–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Veelen MA, Jakimowicz JJ, Kazemier G (2004) Improved physical ergonomics of laparscopic surgery. Min Invas Ther Allied Technol 13:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith WD, Berguer R, Nguyen NT (2005) Monitor height affects surgeons’ stress level and performance on minimally invasive surgery tasks. Stud Health Technol Inform 111:498–501Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huber JW, Taffinder N, Russell RCG, Darzi A (2003) The effects of different viewing conditions on performance in simulated minimal access surgery. Ergonomics 46:999–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Veelen MA, Jakimowicz JJ, Goossens RHM, Meijer DW, Bussmann JBJ (2002) Evaluation of the usability of two types of image display systems during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 16:674–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Emam TA, Frank TG, Hanna GB, Stockham G, Cuschieri A (1999) Rocker handle for endoscopic needle drivers. Surg Endosc 13:658–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Veelen MA, Meijer DW, Uijttewaal I, Goossens RHM, Snijder CJ, Kazemier G (2003) Improvement of the laparoscopic needle holder based on new ergonomic guidelines. Surg Endosc 17:699–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uchal M, Brogger J, Rukas R, Karlsen B, Bergamaschi R (2002) In-line vs. pistol-grip handles in a laparoscopic simulator: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Surg Endosc 16:1771–1773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Emam TA, Frank TG, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (2001) Influence of handle design on the surgeon’s upper limb movements, muscle recruitement, and fatigue during endoscopic suturing. Surg Endosc 15:667–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Veelen MA, Kazemier G, Koopman J, Goossens RHM, Meijer DW (2002) Assessment of the ergonomically optimal operating surface height for laparoscopic Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 12:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berguer R, Smith WD, Davis S (2002) An ergonomic study of the optimum operating table height for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 16:416–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Emam TA, Hanna GB, Kimber C, Dunkley P, Cuschieri A (2000) Effect of intracorporeal–extracorporeal instrument length ratio on endoscopic task performance and surgeon movements. Arch Surg 135:62–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Emam TA, Hanna G, Cuschieri A (2002) Comparison of orthodox vs off-optical axis endoscopic manipulations. Surg Endosc 16:401–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Emam TA, Hanna G, Cuschieri A (2002) Ergonomic principles of task alignment, visual display, and direction of execution of laparoscopic bowel suturing. Surg Endosc 16:267–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Emam TA, Hanna GB, Kimber C, Cuschieri A (2000) Difference between experts and trainees in the motion pattern of the dominant upper limb during intracorporeal endoscopic knotting. Dig Surg 17:120–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Datta V, Chang A, Mackay S, Darzi A (2002) The relationship between motion analysis and surgical technical assessment. Am J Surg 184:70–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Matern U, Kuttler G, Giebmeyer C, Waller P, Faist M (2004) Ergonomic aspects of five different types of laparoscopic instrument handles under dynamic conditions with respect to specific laparoscopic tasks: an electromyographic-based study. Surg Endosc 18:1231–1241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hanna GB, Drew T, Clinch P, Hunter B, Shimi S, Dunkley MP, Cuschieri A (1996) A microprocessor-controlled psychomotor tester for minimal access surgery. Surg Endosc 10:965–969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Quick NE, Gillette JC, Shapiro R, Adrales GL, Gerlach D, Park AE (2003) The effect of using laparoscopic instruments on muscle activation patterns during minimally invasive surgical training procedures. Surg Endosc 17:462–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Crosthwaite G, Chung T, Dunkley P, Shimi S, Cuschieri A (1995) Comparison of direct vision and electronic two- and three-dimensional display systems on surgical task efficiency in endoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 82:849–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Riener R, Reiter S, Rasmus M, Wetzei D, Feussner H (2003) Acquisition of arm and instrument movements during laparoscopic interventions. Min Invas Ther Allied Technol 12:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kondraske GV, Hamilton EC, Scott DJ, Fischer CA, Tesfay ST, Taneja R, Brown RJ, Jones DB (2002) Surgeon workload and motion efficiency with robot and human laparoscopic camera control. Surg Endosc 16:1523–1527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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 17:1077–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gyusung Lee
    • 1
  • Tommy Lee
    • 1
  • David Dexter
    • 1
  • Carlos Godinez
    • 1
  • Nora Meenaghan
    • 1
  • Robert Catania
    • 1
  • Adrian Park
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of MedicineUniversity of MarylandBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations