Advertisement

Obesity Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 137–142 | Cite as

Physical and Mental Impact of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy on the Surgeon: French vs. American Positions. A Randomized and Controlled Study

  • José E. CarmonaEmail author
  • Jorge A. Higuerey
  • Doubraska Gil
  • Mabel Castillo
  • Valentina Escalona
Original Contributions
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the physical and mental impact on the primary surgeon, by the patient’s and surgical staff’s dispositions at the operating table, during laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy.

Materials and Methods

This is a randomized and controlled study that included 18 laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy procedures performed by two surgeons in a private and academic hospital. The cases were randomized for the American or French position. After surgery, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and the Body Part Discomfort (BPD) scales were applied to the primary surgeon.

Results

An increased workload and more discomfort were reported when using the French position. The NASA-TLX was 28 ± 8 vs. 57 ± 18 (p = 0.001), and the BPD was 2 vs. 8 (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The American position resulted in a lower physical and mental impact on the surgeon when performing a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

Keywords

Gastrectomy Bariatric surgery Ergonomics Workload Discomfort 

Notes

Funding

The authors funded the entire research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, et al. Bariatric surgery worldwide 2013. Obes Surg. 2015;25(10):1822–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li JF, Lai DD, Lin ZH, et al. Comparison of the long-term results of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized trials. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, et al. Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(12):3379–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doné, K, DiMartino, A, Judkins, T, Hallbeck, S, Oleynikov D. Evaluation of laparoscopic tools for usability and comfort. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet (2004) 48; 12:1359–62.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, et al. Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(3):306–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, et al. Bariatric surgery and endoluminal procedures: IFSO Worldwide Survey 2014. Obes Surg. 2017;27(9):2279–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. G.Hart, NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later, in Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES ’06), pp. 904–908, October 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruiz-Rabelo JF, Navarro-Rodriguez E, Di-Stasi LL, et al. Validation of the NASA-TLX score in ongoing assessment of mental workload during a laparoscopic learning curve in bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2015;25(12):2451–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carswell CM, Clarke D, Seales WB. Assessing mental workload during laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov. 2005;12(1):80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corlett E, Bishop R. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics. 1976;19(2):175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alleblas CC, Velthuis S, Nieboer TE, et al. The physical workload of surgeons: a comparison of SILS and conventional laparoscopy. Surg Innov. 2015;22(4):376–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Youssef Y, Lee G, Godinez C, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy poses physical injury risk to surgeons: analysis of hand technique and standing position. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:2168–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff C, et al. Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1279–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rhee R, Fernandez G, Bush R, et al. The effects of viewing axis on laparoscopic performance: a comparison of non-expert and expert laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(9):2634–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matern U, Faist M, Kehl K, et al. Monitor position in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(3):436–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haveran LA, Novitsky YW, Czerniach DR, et al. Optimizing laparoscopic task efficiency: the role of camera and monitor positions. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(6):980–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alleblas CCJ, De Man AM, Van Den Haak L, et al. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):905–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kramp KH, van Det MJ, Totte ER, et al. Ergonomic assessment of the French and American position for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the MIS Suite. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(5):1571–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee SR, Shim S, Yu T, et al. Sources of pain in laparoendoscopic gynecological surgeons: an analysis of ergonomic factors and proposal of an aid to improve comfort. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0184400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Catanzarite T, Tan-Kim J, Whitcomb E, et al. Ergonomics in surgery: a review. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;00:00–0.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoe VC, Urquhart DM, Kelsall HL, et al. Ergonomic design and training for preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD008570.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rasotto C, Bergamin M, Simonetti A, et al. Tailored exercise program reduces symptoms of upper limb work-related musculoskeletal disorders in a group of metalworkers: a randomized controlled trial. Man Ther. 2015;20(1):56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hemal AK, Srinivas M, Charles AR. Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2001;15(5):499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yurko YY, Scerbo MW, Prabhu AS, et al. Higher mental workload is associated with poorer laparoscopic performance as measured by the NASA-TLX tool. Simul Healthc. 2010;5(5):267–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Policlínica MetropolitanaCaracasVenezuela

Personalised recommendations