Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ergonomics analysis of pediatric surgical team in dedicated endoscopic surgery suites

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Pediatric Endoscopic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim of the study

Ergonomics in pediatric endoscopic surgery has scarcely been evaluated. It is assumed that procedures are performed with optimal ergonomics in endoscopic surgical suites (e.g., OR1™, Karl Storz Inc.). This study evaluated ergonomics within the pediatric endoscopic surgery team performing procedures in OR1™ (Karl Storz GmbH, Tüttlingen, Germany) at a single institution.

Methods

Prospective data were gathered from 28 endoscopic procedures. Measurement of equipment dimensions in theater was obtained. Photographs from different angles were collected in each session to analyze surgeon and camera-holder angle and direction of views, comfort using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and room lighting preferences.

Main results

(a) Direction of view: in 25 procedures, surgeons had frontal view, with 17 camera holders having frontal and 8 lateral views; in 3 procedures, both surgeons/camera holder had lateral views. (b) Angle of view: surgeon vs. camera holder to screen was optimal (0° to − 20°) in 67%/35%, acceptable (+ 20°to − 30°) in 22%/40%, and non-ergonomic (+ 30°) in 11%/25%. (c) Surgical team comfort (VAS): Surgeon vs. camera holder were comfortable in 7/8 (25%/27%), slight discomfort in 18/12 (64%/42%), and uncomfortable in 3/8 (11%/29%). (d) Room and operating table lighting: 90% preference for only operating room lights and 10% no lights.

Conclusion

Despite improved operating room ergonomics, non-ergonomic angle of view affects > 10% surgeons and 25% camera holder, with both having relative discomfort 11% and 29%, respectively. Camera holder has > 40% non-ergonomic angles of view and > 35% discomfort when compared to surgeons during pediatric endoscopic procedures. No lights during procedures in 10% needs to be also addressed to prevent untoward incidents.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mouret P (1996) How I developed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Acad Med Singap 25:744–747

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Litynski GS (1999) Profiles in laparoscopy: Mouret, Dubois, and Perissat: the laparoscopic breakthrough in Europe (1987–1988). JSLS 3:163–167

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Irion KM, Novak P (2000) Systems workplace for endoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 9:193–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645700009169647

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Klein M, Andersen LP, Alamili M, Gögenur I, Rosenberg J (2010) Psychological and physical stress in surgeons operating in a standard or modern operating room. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 20:237–242. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181ed851d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ronstrom C, Hallbeck S, Lowndes B, Chrouser KL (2018) Surgical ergonomics. In: Köhler T, Schwartz B (eds) Surgeons as educators. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64728-9_22

  6. Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ (1997) The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres? Pain 72:95–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(97)00005-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M (2011) Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63:S240–S252. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Matern U (2009) Ergonomic deficiencies in the operating room: examples from minimally invasive surgery. Work 33:165–168. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2009-0862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, van Veelen MA, Pierie JP (2008) Ergonomic assessment of neck posture in the minimally invasive surgery suite during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 22:2421–2427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0042-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, Totté ER, Pierie JP (2009) Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc 23:1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0148-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hsiao KC, Machaidze Z, Pattaras JG (2004) Time management in the operating room: an analysis of the dedicated minimally invasive surgery suite. JSLS 8:300–303

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, Pierie JP (2009) Interoperative efficiency in minimally invasive surgery suites. Surg Endosc 23:2332–2337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0335-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marcos P, Seitz T, Bubb H, Wichert A, Feussner H (2006) Computer simulation for ergonomic improvements in laparoscopic surgery. Appl Ergon 37:251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kenyon TA, Urbach DR, Speer JB, Waterman-Hukari B, Foraker GF, Hansen PD, Swanström LL (2001) Dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites increase operating room efficiency. Surg Endosc 15:1140–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004640080092

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gabrielson AT, Clifton MM, Pavlovich CP, Biles MJ, Huang M, Agnew J et al (2021) Surgical ergonomics for urologists: a practical guide. Nat Rev Urol 18:160–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-00414-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller K, Benden M, Pickens A, Shipp E, Zheng Q (2012) Ergonomics principles associated with laparoscopic surgeon injury/illness. Hum Factors 54:1087–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812451046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wauben LS, van Veelen MA, Gossot D, Goossens RH (2006) Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc 20:1268–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0647-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yoong W, Sanchez-Crespo J, Rob J, Parikh M, Melendez J, Pillai R et al (2008) Sticks and stones may break my bones: work-related orthopaedic injuries sustained during obstetrics and gynaecology training. J Obstet Gynaecol 28:478–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610802091396

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Seghers J, Jochem A, Spaepen A (2003) Posture, muscle activity and muscle fatigue in prolonged VDT work at different screen height settings. Ergonomics 46:714–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000090107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liang B, Qi L, Yang J, Cao Z, Zu X, Liu L et al (2013) Ergonomic status of laparoscopic urologic surgery: survey results from 241 urologic surgeons in China. PLoS ONE 8:e70423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Omar AM, Wade NJ, Brown SI, Cuschieri A (2005) Assessing the benefits of “gaze-down” display location in complex tasks. Surg Endosc 19:105–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8141-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Haveran LA, Novitsky YW, Czerniach DR, Kaban GK, Taylor M, Gallagher-Dorval K et al (2007) Optimizing laparoscopic task efficiency: the role of camera and monitor positions. Surg Endosc 21:980–984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9360-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Matern U, Faist M, Kehl K, Giebmeyer C, Buess G (2005) Monitor position in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 19:436–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-9030-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hanna GB, Shimi SM, Cuschieri A (1998) Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Ann Surg 227:481–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Manasnayakorn S, Cuschieri A, Hanna GB (2009) Ergonomic assessment of optimum operating table height for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:783–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0068-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Chelsea Children’s Hospital, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Fdn Trust, Imperial College London, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK

    Carmen Sofia Chacon, Tariq Mehmood & Amulya K. Saxena

Authors
  1. Carmen Sofia Chacon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tariq Mehmood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amulya K. Saxena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amulya K. Saxena.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was registered with the Quality Governance.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chacon, C.S., Mehmood, T. & Saxena, A.K. Ergonomics analysis of pediatric surgical team in dedicated endoscopic surgery suites. J Ped Endosc Surg 5, 147–152 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42804-023-00203-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42804-023-00203-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation