Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 516–526 | Cite as

Musculoskeletal pain among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review

  • Tina Dalager
  • Karen Søgaard
  • Katrine Tholstrup Bech
  • Ole Mogensen
  • Pernille Tine Jensen
Review

Abstract

Background

Musculoskeletal pain is the most common occupational disease in Europe. Surgeons with awkward and static working postures are no exception. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy has been postulated to be superior to conventional laparoscopy regarding the ergonomic strain for surgeons. In this review, we aimed to systematically evaluate the existing literature comparing the two surgical modalities.

Methods

A systematic literature search was employed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library in spring 2015. Inclusion criteria were as follows: English language, full text available, original data, and comparative data on surgeons’ physical workload with robotic-assisted laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy. Studies only describing a single surgical modality were excluded. We applied the checklist, STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), to assess the quality of reporting of the included studies. Semi-quantitative comparisons were made.

Results

In total, 2685 records were screened and 15 articles were included in the analysis. All studies were observational with sample sizes ranging from one single surgeon to 250 questionnaire responses. None of the studies fully fulfilled the criteria of STROBE, with an average score of 13 (range 10–16) out of 18.

Discussion

Results, mainly self-reported measures, suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopy is less strenuous compared with conventional laparoscopy. However, results are limited by the large methodological heterogeneity and a high risk of bias. We advocate for further high-quality exposure studies to assess the potential ergonomic deficits related to different minimally invasive surgical techniques. In addition, future intervention studies should evaluate possible means to alleviate and prevent musculoskeletal pain among surgeons.

Keywords

Physical work demands Robotic surgery Conventional laparoscopy Surgeons’ health Physical work environment 

Notes

Author contribution

TD, KS, OM and PTJ designed the study concept. TD and KTB have extracted data from the systematic literature search. TD, KS, OM and PTJ have made substantial contribution to the interpretation of data. All authors have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content and have given final approval for the version to be published.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Tina Dalager, Karen Søgaard, Katrine Tholstrup Bech, Ole Mogensen and Pernille Tine Jensen have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Schneider E, Irastorza X (2010) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the EU. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) pp 1–184Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Craven R, Franasiak J, Mosaly P, Gehrig PA (2013) Ergonomic deficits in robotic gynecologic oncology surgery: a need for intervention. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20:648–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruitenburg MM, Frings-Dresen MH, Sluiter JK (2013) Physical job demands and related health complaints among surgeons. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 86:271–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stomberg MW, Tronstad SE, Hedberg K, Bengtsson J, Jonsson P, Johansen L, Lindvall B (2010) Work-related musculoskeletal disorders when performing laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 20:49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mori KM, Neubauer NL (2013) Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2013:312982CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27:5331–5336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nilsson G, Larsson S, Johnsson F (2000) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open fundoplication: blind evaluation of recovery and discharge period. Br J Surg 87:873–878CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 126:437–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reyes DAG, Tang B, Cuschieri A (2006) Minimal access surgery (MAS)-related surgeon morbidity syndromes. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 20:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD (1999) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 13:466–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szeto GPY, Ho P, Ting ACW, Poon JTC, Cheng SWK, Tsang RCC (2009) Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms in surgeons. J Occup Rehabil 19:175–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nguyen NT, Ho HS, Smith WD, Philipps C, Lewis C, De Vera RM, Berguer R (2001) An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons’ axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during laparoscopic and open surgery. Am J Surg 182:720–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210:306–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sari V, Nieboer TE, Vierhout ME, Stegeman DF, Kluivers KB (2010) The operation room as a hostile environment for surgeons: physical complaints during and after laparoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19:105–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 16:635–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 Other Interv Tech 20:1268–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bagrodia A, Raman JD (2009) Ergonomics considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J Endourol 23:627–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Berguer R, Smith W (2006) An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res 134:87–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Franasiak J, Craven R, Mosaly P, Gehrig PA (2014) Feasibility and acceptance of a robotic surgery ergonomic training program. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 18(4):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Lawson EH, Curet MJ, Sanchez BR, Schuster R, Berguer R (2007) Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. J Robot Surg 1:61–67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giberti C, Gallo F, Francini L, Signori A, Testa M (2014) Musculoskeletal disorders among robotic surgeons: a questionnaire analysis. Arch Ital Urol Androl 86:95–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M, Initiative S (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 18:805–835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Szeto GPY, Poon JTC, Law WL (2013) A comparison of surgeon’s postural muscle activity during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery. J Robot Surg 7:305–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Butler KA, Kapetanakis VE, Smith BE, Sanjak M, Verheijde JL, Chang YHH, Magtibay PM, Magrina JF (2013) Surgeon fatigue and postural stability: is robotic better than laparoscopic surgery? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23:343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Der Schatte Olivier RH, Van’t Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 23:1365–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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 134:243–247CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:234–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, Cho S, Awad MM (2014) Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 28:3379–3384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    Moore LJ, Wilson MR, McGrath JS, Waine E, Masters RS, Vine SJ (2014) Surgeons’ display reduced mental effort and workload while performing robotically assisted surgical tasks, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 29(9):2553–2560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, Ousley J, Cho S, Awad MM (2014) FLS tasks can be used as an ergonomic discriminator between laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:2459–2465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Elhage O, Challacombe B, Shortland A, Dasgupta P (2015) An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort: a comparison between robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open approaches. BJU Int 115:274–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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 25:2141–2146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Essendrop M, Schibye B, Hansen K (2001) Reliability of isometric muscle strength tests for the trunk, hands and shoulders. Int J Ind Ergon 28:379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hagg GM, Luttmann A, Jager M (2000) Methodologies for evaluating electromyographic field data in ergonomics. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10:301–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McAtamney L, Nigel Corlett E (1993) RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon 24:91–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hart S, Staveland L (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Hum Mental Workload 1:139–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilson MR, Poolton JM, Malhotra N, Ngo K, Bright E, Masters RS (2011) Development and validation of a surgical workload measure: the surgery task load index (SURG-TLX). World J Surg 35:1961–1969CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lux MM, Marshall M, Erturk E, Joseph JV (2010) Ergonomic evaluation and guidelines for use of the daVinci Robot system. J Endourol 24:371–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tjiam IM, Goossens RH, Schout BM, Koldewijn EL, Hendrikx AJ, Muijtjens AM, Scherpbier AJ, Witjes JA (2014) Ergonomics in endourology and laparoscopy: an overview of musculoskeletal problems in urology. J Endourol 28:605–611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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 Other Interv Tech 16:635–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Miller K, Benden M, Pickens A, Shipp E, Zheng Q (2012) Ergonomics principles associated with laparoscopic surgeon injury/illness. Hum Factors 54:1087–1092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Epstein AJ, Groeneveld PW, Harhay MO, Yang F, Polsky D (2013) Impact of minimally invasive surgery on medical spending and employee absenteeism. JAMA Surg 148:641–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, Shirley M, Vale L, Ramsay C, Pickard R (2013) Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol 64:361–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yu HY, Friedlander DF, Patel S, Hu JC (2013) The current status of robotic oncologic surgery. CA Cancer J Clin 63:45–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sports Science and Clinical BiomechanicsUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Clinical InstituteUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Gynaecology and ObstetricsOdense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Gynaecology and ObstetricsKarolinska University HospitalStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations