Advertisement

Effect of Patient Body Mass Index on Laparoscopic Surgical Ergonomics

  • Zhe Liang
  • William D. GerullEmail author
  • Robert Wang
  • Ahmed Zihni
  • Shuddhadeb Ray
  • Michael Awad
Original Contributions
First Online:
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive surgery may introduce new ergonomic challenges for surgeons. Increased patient body mass index (BMI) may further add to this ergonomic stress.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to quantify the ergonomic impact of patient BMI on surgeons during laparoscopic surgery.

Setting

University Hospital, USA.

Methods

This prospective cohort study analyzed five minimally invasive surgeons during 24 laparoscopic procedures. Each subject’s muscle stress was assessed by recording surface electromyography (EMG) data from eight upper body muscle groups during laparoscopic procedures. EMG data was normalized against the maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) of each muscle measured before the start of surgery to create a percentage of the MVC value (%MVC). Subject workload was assessed through the NASA Task Load Index (NTLX). Statistical analysis was used to determine significance between surgeons operating on patients with or without obesity for %MVC and NTLX scores.

Results

There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in both the average muscle activation of all eight muscle groups and NTLX scores during laparoscopic surgery in surgeons operating on patients with BMI > = 30 compared with patients with a BMI < 30.

Conclusions

We detected no differences in ergonomic stress or workload for surgeons operating on patients with or without obesity. For surgeons, the laparoscopic approach may offer an additional advantage over open surgery in patients with obesity. This advantage may be due to an “equalizing effect” of laparoscopy—that surgical ergonomics are less affected by the BMI of the patient when using laparoscopic tools.

Keywords

Surgical ergonomics Obesity EMG NASA TLX 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) [2012] and Intuitive, Surgical Inc. [2013].

Funding

This work was supported by the Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) [2012] and Intuitive, Surgical Inc. [2013].

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, et al. Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:306–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee J, Mabardy A, Kermani R, et al. Laparoscopic vs open ventral hernia repair in the era of obesity. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:723–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lomanto D, Iyer SG, Shabbir A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia mesh repair: a prospective study. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1030–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schauer PR, Ikramuddin S, McLaughlin RH, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair of paraesophageal hernia. Am J Surg. 1998;176:659–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tanphiphat C, Tanprayoon T, Sangsubhan C, et al. Laparoscopic vs open inguinal hernia repair. A randomized, controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:846–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schauer PR, Ikramuddin S. Laparoscopic surgery for morbid obesity. Surg Clin North Am. 2001;81:1145–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NIH Consensus conference. Gallstones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JAMA. 1993;269:1018–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berguer R, Chen J, Smith WD. A comparison of the physical effort required for laparoscopic and open surgical techniques. Arch Surg. 2003;138:967–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, et al. Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3379–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang R, Liang Z, Zihni AM, et al. Which causes more ergonomic stress: laparoscopic or open surgery? Surg Endosc. 2017;8:3286–90.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zihni AM, Cavallo JA, Ray S, et al. Ergonomic analysis of primary and assistant surgical roles. J Surg Res. 2016;203:301–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee GI, Lee MR, Clanton T, et al. Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:456–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, et al. FLS tasks can be used as an ergonomic discriminator between laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2459–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, et al. Methodological infrastructure in surgical ergonomics: a review of tasks, models, and measurement systems. Surg Innov. 2007;14:153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, et al. Ergonomic risk associated with assisting in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:182–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zihni A, Ge T, Ray S, et al. Transfer and priming of surgical skills across minimally invasive surgical platforms. J Surg Res. 2016;206:48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sundbom M. Laparoscopic revolution in bariatric surgery. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:15135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pasam RT, Esemuede IO, Lee-Kong SA, et al. The minimally invasive approach is associated with reduced surgical site infections in obese patients undergoing proctectomy. Tech Coloproctol. 2015;19:733–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hardiman K, Chang ET, Diggs BS, et al. Laparoscopic colectomy reduces morbidity and mortality in obese patients. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:2907–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scheib SA, Tanner E, Green IC, et al. Laparoscopy in the morbidly obese: physiologic considerations and surgical techniques to optimize success. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:182–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Section of Minimally Invasive SurgeryWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.UrologyUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options