Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 2168–2174

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy poses physical injury risk to surgeons: analysis of hand technique and standing position

  • Yassar Youssef
  • Gyusung Lee
  • Carlos Godinez
  • Erica Sutton
  • Rosemary V. Klein
  • Ivan M. George
  • F. Jacob Seagull
  • Adrian Park
Article

Abstract

Background

This study compares surgical techniques and surgeon’s standing position during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), investigating each with respect to surgeons’ learning, performance, and ergonomics. Little homogeneity exists in LC performance and training. Variations in standing position (side-standing technique vs. between-standing technique) and hand technique (one-handed vs. two-handed) exist.

Methods

Thirty-two LC procedures performed on a virtual reality simulator were video-recorded and analyzed. Each subject performed four different procedures: one-handed/side-standing, one-handed/between-standing, two-handed/side-standing, and two-handed/between-standing. Physical ergonomics were evaluated using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Mental workload assessment was acquired with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Virtual reality (VR) simulator-generated performance evaluation and a subjective survey were analyzed.

Results

RULA scores were consistently lower (indicating better ergonomics) for the between-standing technique and higher (indicating worse ergonomics) for the side-standing technique, regardless of whether one- or two-handed. Anatomical scores overall showed side-standing to have a detrimental effect on the upper arms and trunk. The NASA-TLX showed significant association between the side-standing position and high physical demand, effort, and frustration (p < 0.05). The two-handed technique in the side-standing position required more effort than the one-handed (p < 0.05). No difference in operative time or complication rate was demonstrated among the four procedures. The two-handed/between-standing method was chosen as the best procedure to teach and standardize.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy poses a risk of physical injury to the surgeon. As LC is currently commonly performed in the United States, the left side-standing position may lead to increased physical demand and effort, resulting in ergonomically unsound conditions for the surgeon. Though further investigations should be conducted, adopting the between-standing position deserves serious consideration as it may be the best short-term ergonomic alternative.

Keywords

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy Training Endoscopy Surgical standing position Technique Ergonomics RULA 

References

  1. 1.
    Chung R, Pham Q, Wojtasik L, Chari V, Chen P (2003) The laparoscopic experience of surgical graduates in the United States. Surg Endosc 17:1792–1795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fabiani P, Iovine L, Katkhouda J, Gugenheim J, Mouiel J (1993) Dissection du triangle de Calot par voie coelioscopique. Presse Med 22:535–537PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strasberg SM, Hertl M, Soper NJ (1995) An analysis of the problem of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg 180:101–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Litwin DEM, Cahan MA (2008) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Clin North Am 88:1295–1313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perissat J (1993) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the European experience. Am J Surg 165:444–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elhage O, Murphy D, Challacombe B, Shortland A, Dasgupta P (2007) Ergonomics in minimally invasive surgery. Int J Clin Pract 61:186–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frezza EE (2005) The lithotomy versus the supine position for laparoscopic advanced surgeries: a historical review. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 15:140–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, Totte ER, Pierie JN (2009) Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc 23:1279–1285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Welty G, Schippers E, Grablowitz V, Lawong AG, Tittel A, Schumpelick V (2002) Is laparoscopic cholecystectomy a mature operative technique? Surg Endosc 16:820–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Phillips E, Daykhovsky L, Carroll B, Gershman A, Grundfest WS (1990) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: instrumentation and technique. J Laparoendosc Surg 1:3–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reddick E, Olsen D, Daniel J, Saye W, McKernan B, Miller W, Hoback M (1989) Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy. Laser Med Surg Adv 7:38–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubois F, Berthelot G, Levard H (1995) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Technique and complications. Report of 2,665 cases. Bull Acad Natl Med 175:1059–1066; discussion 1066–1068Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kauvar DS, Braswell A, Brown BD, Harnisch M (2006) Influence of resident and attending surgeon seniority on operative performance in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Surg Res 132:159–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosin D (1997) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In: Zinner MJ, Schwartz SE, Ellis H (eds) Maingot’s abdominal surgery. Appleton & Lange, Norwalk, CT, pp 1855–1865Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McAtamney L, Corlett EN (1993) RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 24:91–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 19:1064–1070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carswell GM, Clarke D, Seales WB (2005) Assessing mental workload during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 12:80–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lawson E, Curet M, Sanchez B, Schuster R, Berguer R (2007) Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. J Robot Surg 1:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berguer R, Chen J, Smith WD (2003) A comparison of the physical effort required for laparoscopic and open surgical techniques. Arch Surg 138:967–970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD (1999) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13:466–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 16:635–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2009) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210:306–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nuzzo G, Giuliante F, Giovannini I, Ardito F, D’Acapito F, Vellone M, Murazio M, Capelli G (2005) Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of an Italian national survey on 56 591 cholecystectomies. Arch Surg 140:986–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen NT, Hung S, Ho HS, Smith WD, Philipps C, Lewis C, Rodel M, De Vera RM, Berguer R (2001) An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons’ axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during endoscopic and open surgery. Am J Surg 182:720–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Person JG, Hodgson AJ, Nagy AG (2001) Automated high-frequency posture sampling for ergonomic assessment of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 9:997–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bridger RS (2003) Introduction to ergonomics, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vereczkei A, Feussner H, Negele T, Fritzsche F, Seitz T, Bubb H, Horvath OP (2004) Ergonomic assessment of the static stress confronted by surgeons during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 18:1118–1122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Bello F, Chang A, Darzi A (2004) Bimodal assessment of laparoscopic suturing skills: construct and concurrent validity. Surg Endosc 18:1608–1612PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adrales GL, Chu UB, Hoskins JD, Witzke DB, Park AE (2004) Development of a valid, cost-effective laparoscopic training program. Am J Surg 187:157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yassar Youssef
    • 1
  • Gyusung Lee
    • 1
  • Carlos Godinez
    • 1
  • Erica Sutton
    • 1
  • Rosemary V. Klein
    • 1
  • Ivan M. George
    • 1
  • F. Jacob Seagull
    • 1
  • Adrian Park
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of General SurgeryUniversity of Maryland Medical CenterBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations