Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Monitor position in laparoscopic surgery

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

One of the key problems in laparoscopy is the ergonomic positioning of the monitor. In this study we tested task performance and muscle strain of subjects in relation to monitor position during laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Eighteen subjects simulated laparoscopic suturing by threading tiny pearls with a curved needle. This was repeated in three monitor positions (15 min each): frontal at eye level (A), frontal in height of the operating field (B), and 45° to the right side at eye level (C). Subjects were not allowed to turn their heads during these sessions. After the test they were asked for their preferred monitor position. During all tests the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the main neck muscles was recorded and the number of pearls was counted.

Results

The EMG activity was significantly lower for position A compared to positions C and B (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found between positions B and C. The number of threaded pearls as an indicator for task performance was highest for position B. The difference was statistically significant compared to position C (p = 0.0008) but not between positions A and C (p = 0.0508) or A and B (p = 0.0575). When asked for the preferred monitor position, nine subjects chose two monitors in the frontal positions A and B. No subject preferred the monitor at the side position (C).

Conclusion

Regarding EMG data, the monitor positioned frontal at eye level is preferable. Reflecting personal preferences of subjects and task performance, it should be of advantage to place two monitors in front of the surgeon: one in position A for lowest neck strain and the other in position B for difficult tasks with optimal task performance. The monitor position at the side is not advisable.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A Aaras KI Fostervold O Ro M Thoresen S Larsen (1997) ArticleTitlePostural load during VDU work: a comparison between various postures Ergonomics 40 1255–1268 Occurrence Handle10.1080/001401397187496 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FktlWltQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9375538

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DH Birkett (1995) ArticleTitleThree-dimensional laparoscopy J Laparoendosc Surg 5 327–331 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymC3MnhvFQ%3D Occurrence Handle8845507

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. EN Corlett (1995) The evaluation of posture and its effects JR Wilson EN Corlett (Eds) Evaluation of human work. A practical ergonomics methodology Taylor & Francis London 689–692

    Google Scholar 

  4. P Faul (1993) ArticleTitleVideo TUR: raising the gold standard-new aspects, techniques and tendencies to minimize invasiveness Eur Urol 24 256–261 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByyA1cjjsl0%3D Occurrence Handle8375449

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. E Grandjean (1991) Physiologische Arbeitsplatzgestaltung Ecomed Landsberg, ISBN 3-609–644605

    Google Scholar 

  6. R Griesel (1995) Apparative Ausrustung und Instrumente in der minimal invasiven Chirurgie A Pier E Schippers (Eds) Minimal invasive chirurgie: grundlagen, techniken, ergebnisse, trends Thieme Stuttgart 72–75

    Google Scholar 

  7. GB Hanna S Shimi A Cuschieri (1997) ArticleTitleInfluence of direction of view, target-to-endoscope distance and manipulating angle on endoscopic knot tying Br J Surg 84 1460–1464 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1365-2168.1997.02835.x Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FislKrtw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9361614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. GB Hanna S Shimi A Cuschieri (1997) ArticleTitleOptimal port locations for endoscopic intracorporal knotting Surg Endos 11 397–401 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s004649900374 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiB2M%2Fnt1Q%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. GB Hanna S Shimi A Cuschieri (1998) ArticleTitleTask performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display Ann Surg 227 481–484 Occurrence Handle10.1097/00000658-199804000-00005 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c3it12qtQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9563533

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. T Hettinger (1970) Angewandte Ergonomie. Arbeitsphysiologische und arbeitsmedizinische Probleme in der Betriebspraxis Bartmann Verlag Frenchen

    Google Scholar 

  11. L Lannersten K Harms-Ringdahl (1990) ArticleTitleNeck and shoulder muscle activity during work with different cash register systems Ergonomics 33 49–65 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By%2BB2c3otlI%3D Occurrence Handle2335166

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. A Luttmann J Sokeland W Laurig (1998) ArticleTitleMuscular strain and fatigue among urologists during transurethral resections using direct and monitor endoscopy Eur Urol 34 6–14 Occurrence Handle10.1159/000019670 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1czktFSqtA%3D%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. EA Mueller (1935) Die Erholung nach statischer Haltearbeit E Atzler (Eds) Arbeitsphysiologie, Zeitschrift fur die Physiologie des Menschen bei Arbeit und Sport Springer-Verlag Berlin 72–79

    Google Scholar 

  14. InstitutionalAuthorNameRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) (1994) Report of the RCOG working party on training in gynaecological endoscopic surgery RCOG London 8–12

    Google Scholar 

  15. F Tendick RW Jennings G Tharp L Stark (1993) ArticleTitleSensing and manipulation problems in endoscopic surgery: experiment, analysis, and observation Presence 2 66–81

    Google Scholar 

  16. MA Veelen Particlevan JJ Jakimowicz RHM Goossens DW Meijer JBJ Bussmann (2002) ArticleTitleEvaluation of the usability of two types of image display systems during laparoscopy Surg Endosc 16 674–678 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00464-001-9116-4 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD383jsVequg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11972213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The surgical instruments were generously provided by their manufacturers. The study was supported by a grant from Karl Storz (Tuttlingen, Germany). We thank Prof. Schulte-Monting for statistical analysis (Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Freiburg).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section for MIS, Department of General Surgery, University-Hospital Tuebingen, Waldhoernlestrasse 22, Tuebingen, 72072, Germany

    U. Matern, K. Kehl, C. Giebmeyer & G. Buess

  2. Department of Neurology, University-Hospital Freiburg, Breisacherstrasse, 64, Freiburg i.Br., 79106, Germany

    M. Faist

Authors
  1. U. Matern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Faist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Kehl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Giebmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Buess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Matern.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-9030-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation