Skip to main content
Log in

Surgeon activity in robotic versus abdominal gynecologic surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One proposed advantage of robotic surgery is improved ergonomics and decreased surgeon fatigue. The objective of this study is to quantify and compare the physical activity of surgeons during robotic and abdominal surgery using accelerometers. Eight gynecologic surgeons who perform both abdominal and robotic surgery were the subjects of this study. Each wore an accelerometer on the hip during one procedure performed abdominally and during a similar procedure performed robotically. Activity parameters analyzed were average activity counts (AAC) and percentage of time spent in sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous activity. The paired t-test was used to evaluate differences between robotic and abdominal procedures. AAC was similar between the robotic and abdominal approaches (mean ± SD: 83.9 ± 50.9 versus 79.1 ± 37.8 counts/min, respectively, P = 0.820). The majority of activity spent in robotic and abdominal surgery was sedentary (79.0% ± 5.9% versus 80.9% ± 8.6%, respectively; P = 0.625) followed by light activity (14.7% ± 3.9% versus 12.8% ± 6.1%, respectively; P = 0.541) and then by moderate activity (6.3% ± 3.4% versus 6.3% ± 2.8%, respectively; P = 0.981). None of the activity for either surgical approach qualified as vigorous. There were no differences in activity parameters by surgical approach. Accelerometer data demonstrate that surgeon activity expenditure is similar in robotic and abdominal surgery. Future studies comparing measures of physical activity and strain between surgical approaches are needed to determine whether the robot’s improved ergonomics translates to improved surgeon experience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Loos MJ, Scheltinga MR, Mulders LG, Roumen RM (2008) The pfannenstiel incision as a source of chronic pain. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):839–846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C (2005) Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(5):1752–1758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Patel M, O’Sullivan D, Tulikangas PK (2008) A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 33:16

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rosen M, Garcia-Ruiz A, Malm J, Mayes JT, Steiger E, Ponsky J (2001) Laparoscopic hernia repair enhances early return of physical work capacity. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 11(1):28–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Berguer R, Smith WD, Chung YH (2001) Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery. Surg Endosc 15:1204–1207

    Google Scholar 

  6. Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD (1999) Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endoscopy 13:466–468

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berguer R, Rab GT, Abu-Ghaida H, Alarcon A, Chung J (1997) A comparison of surgeons’ posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures. Surg Endos 11:139–342

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vereczkei A (2003) Laparoscopic surgery and ergonomics: it’s time to think of ourselves as well. Surg Endosc 17:1680–1682

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mitre AI, Duarte RJ, Arap MA, Coelho RF, Lpes RI, Trigo-Rocha F, Srougi M (2009) Ergonomic aspects related to surgeon position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 23(2):259–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 23:182–88

    Google Scholar 

  11. Narula BK, Watson WC, Davis SS, Hinshaw K, Needleman BJ, Mikami DJ, Hazey JW, Winston JH, Muscarella P, Rubin M, Patel V, Melvin WS (2007) A computerized analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic task performance. Surg Endosc 21:2258–2261

    Google Scholar 

  12. Galleano R, Carter F, Brown S, Frank T, Cuschieri A (2006) Can armrests improve comfort and task performance in laparoscopic surgery? Annal Surg 243(3):329–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Van der Schatte Olivier RH, van’t Hullenaar CPD, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1365–1371

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lee G, Kavic SM, George IM, Park AE (2007) Postural instability does not necessarily correlate to poor performance: case in point. Surg Endosc 21:471–474

    Google Scholar 

  15. Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff C, van Veelen MA, Pierie JPEN (2008) Ergonomic assessment of neck posture in minimally invasive surgery suite during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:2421–2427

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah A. Collins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Collins, S.A., O’Sullivan, D.M. & Tulikangas, P.K. Surgeon activity in robotic versus abdominal gynecologic surgery. J Robotic Surg 6, 333–336 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0317-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0317-0

Keywords

Navigation