Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 2934–2940 | Cite as

Ergon-trial: ergonomic evaluation of single-port access versus three-port access video-assisted thoracic surgery

Article

Abstract

Background

Single-port access video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), a technique progressively developed from the standard three-port approach in minimally invasive surgery, offers ergonomic advantages but also new challenges for the surgeon. We compared the ergonomics of three-port versus single-port VATS.

Methods

Posture analysis of surgeons was evaluated during 100 consecutive VATS wedge resections (50 triportal vs. 50 uniportal). Technically demanding procedures (major lung resection) were excluded. Operating table height, monitor height, distance and inclination were adjusted according to operator preference. Body posture was assessed by measuring head–trunk axial rotation and head flexion. Perceived physical strain was self-evaluated on the Borg Category Ratio (CR-10) scale. Mental workload was assessed with the National Aeronautics Space Administration–Task Load indeX (NASA–TLX), a multidimensional tool that rates workloads on six scales (mental, physical and temporal demand; effort; performance; frustration).

Results

All procedures were completed without complications. Head–trunk axial rotation was significantly reduced and neck flexion significantly improved in uniportal VATS. Viewing direction significantly declined (p = 0.01), body posture as measured on the Borg CR–10 scale was perceived as more stressful and the NASA–TLX score for overall workload was higher (p = 0.04) during triportal VATS. The NASA–TLX score for frustration was higher with uniportal VATS (p = 0.02), but the score for physical demand was higher in triportal VATS (p = 0.006).

Conclusions

The surgeon can maintain a more neutral body posture during uniportal VATS by standing straight and facing the monitor with only minimal neck extension/rotation; however, frustration is greater than with triportal VATS.

Keywords

Ergonomics Physical workload Mental workload Video-assisted thoracic surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mario Viti, a gifted multimedia artist, for his valuable help with the artwork. The authors thank Dr. Diego Gonzalez Rivas who kindly offered to review this paper.

Disclosures

Luca Bertolaccini, Andrea Viti, and Alberto Terzi declare no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose

References

  1. 1.
    Walker WS, Casali G (2008) The VATS lobectomist: analysis of costs and alterations in the traditional surgical working pattern in the modern surgical unit. Thorac Surg Clin 18:281–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rocco G (2012) One-port (uniportal) video-assisted thoracic surgical resections—a clear advance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 144:S27–S31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gonzalez Rivas D, Fernandez R, De La Torre M, Martin Ucar AE (2012) Thoracoscopic lobectomy through a single incision. MMCTS. doi:10.1093/mmcts/mms007 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Welcker K, Kesieme EB, Internullo E, Kranenburg van Koppen LJC (2012) Ergonomics in thoracoscopic surgery: results of a survey among thoracic surgeons. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 15:197–200PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Ergonomic evaluation of laparoscopic bowel suturing. Am J Surg 176:373–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wauben LSGL, Van Veelen MA, Gossot D, Goossens RHM (2006) Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc 20:1268–1274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kranenburg L, Gossot D (2004) Ergonomic problems encountered during video-assisted thoracic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 13:147–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Ann Surg 227:481–484PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff C, Totté ER, Pierie JPEN (2009) Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc 23:1279–1285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff C, Van Veelen MA, Pierie JPEN (2008) Ergonomic assessment of neck posture in the minimally invasive surgery suite during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:2421–2427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seghers J, Jochem A, Spaepen A (2003) Posture, muscle activity and muscle fatigue in prolonged VDT work at different screen height settings. Ergonomics 46:714–730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borg G (2008) A general scale to rate symptoms and feelings related to problems of ergonomic and organizational importance. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 30:A8–A10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cao A, Chintamani KK, Pandya AK, Ellis RD (2009) NASA TLX: software for assessing subjective mental workload. Behav Res Methods 41:113–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noyes JM, Bruneau DPJ (2007) A self-analysis of the NASA-TLX workload measure. Ergonomics 50:514–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 9:142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trejo A, Jung MC, Oleynikov D, Hallbeck MS (2007) Effect of handle design and target location on insertion and aim with a laparoscopic surgical tool. Appl Ergon 38:745–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bertolaccini L, Rocco G, Viti A, Terzi A (2013) Geometrical characteristics of uniportal VATS. J Thorac Dis 5:S214–S216PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Menozzi M, Von Buol A, Krueger H, Miège C (1994) Direction of gaze and comfort: discovering the relation for the ergonomic optimization of visual tasks. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 14:393–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gage WH, Winter DA, Frank JS, Adkin AL (2004) Kinematic and kinetic validity of the inverted pendulum model in quiet standing. Gait Posture 19:124–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, Godinez C, Meenaghan N, Catania R, Park A (2009) Ergonomic risk associated with assisting in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 23:182–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 28:456–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Veelen MA, Nederlof EAL, Goossens RHM, Schot CJ, Jakimowicz JJ (2003) Ergonomic problems encountered by the medical team related to products used for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 17:1077–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Psihogios JP, Sommerich CM, Mirka GA, Moon SD (2001) A field evaluation of monitor placement effects in VDT users. Appl Ergon 32:313–325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee G, Kavic SM, George IM, Park AE (2007) Postural instability does not necessarily correlate to poor performance: case in point. Surg Endosc 21:471–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thoracic Surgery UnitSacro Cuore Research HospitalNegrarItaly
  2. 2.Thoracic Surgery UnitS. Croce e Carle HospitalCuneoItaly

Personalised recommendations