Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires

• Published in: Surgical endoscopy Vol. 31; no. 2; pp. 877 - 886
• Main Authors: Yu, Denny, Dural, Cem, Morrow, Melissa M. B., Yang, Liyun, Collins, Justin W., Hallbeck, Susan, Kjellman, Magnus, Forsman, Mikael
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.02.2017; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Adult; Biomechanics; Ergonomics; Female; Gastroenterology; Gynecology; Hepatology; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Neck Pain - epidemiology; Occupational Diseases - epidemiology; Posture; Proctology; Prostate; Prostatectomy - methods; Questionnaires; Robotic surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods; Sensors; Shoulder Pain - epidemiology; Surgeons; Surgery; Surveys and Questionnaires; Workload; Workloads; United States > US; Sweden; Robotic surgery; Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy; Ergonomics; Workload
• ISSN: 0930-2794; 1432-2218; 1432-2218
• DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5047-y

Background The introduction of robotic technology has revolutionized radical prostatectomy surgery. However, the potential benefits of robotic techniques may have trade-offs in increased mental demand for the surgeon and the physical demand for the assisting surgeon. This study employed an innovative motion tracking tool along with validated workload questionnaire to assess the ergonomics and workload for both assisting and console surgeons intraoperatively. Methods Fifteen RARP cases were collected in this study. Cases were performed by 10 different participants, six primarily performed console tasks and four primarily performed assisting tasks. Participants had a median 12 (min—3, max—25) years of surgical experience. Both console and assisting surgeons performed robotic prostatectomy cases while wearing inertial measurement units (IMUs) that continuously track neck, shoulder, and torso motion without interfering with the sterile environment. Postoperatively, participants completed a workload questionnaire (SURG-TLX) and a body part discomfort questionnaire. Results Twenty-six questionnaires were completed from 13 assisting and 13 console surgeons over the 15 cases. Postoperative pain was reported highest for the right shoulder and neck. Mental demands were 41 % higher for surgeons at the console than assisting ( p  < 0.05), while physical demands were not significantly different. Assisting surgeons worked in demanding neck postures for 58 % of the procedure compared to 24 % for the console surgeon ( p  < 0.01). Surgeons at the console were primarily static and showed 2–5 times fewer movements than assisting surgeons ( p  < 0.01). Conclusions Postures were more ergonomic during console tasks than when assisting by the bedside; however, the console may constrain postures leading to static loads that have been associated with musculoskeletal symptoms for the neck, torso, and shoulders. The IMU sensors were effective at quantifying ergonomics in robotic prostatectomies, and these methods and findings have broad applications to other robotic procedures.