PubMed · 14528830
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Craig Chasen. 2003. Performing effective ergonomic evaluations.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14528830/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The benefits of minimal access surgery (MAS) in terms of accelerated recovery, reduced period of short-term disability, and patient outcome account for the widespread use of the laparoscopic approach by the majority of general surgeons. In adopting this approach with its current limitations and poor ergonomics, surgeons have been known to sustain surgery-related injuries encompassed by a spectrum best described as MAS-related surgeon morbidity syndromes, some of which are currently overlooked and poorly researched. Equivalent morbidities including the overuse syndrome (from overuse of certain muscle groups during long operations) have been documented in open surgery but are nowadays rare occurrences. As more advanced MAS operations are performed with long execution times, new patterns of neuromusculoskeletal injuries are being recognized. The surgical fatigue syndrome has also been described, though its complex nature is not fully understood. Virtually little is known on other long-term adverse effects on the surgeon following many years of operating from images displayed on a television monitor or LCD screen, and these include deterioration of visual acuity and function of the ocular muscles responsible for fixation-refixation of the eyeballs. The limited reported literature on the MAS-related surgeon morbidity syndromes identifies certain risk factors for these injuries pertaining to central and peripheral domains. Only improved knowledge of the etiology and underlying ergonomic factors based on investigative studies followed by improved instrumentation and operating room (OR) ergonomics will provide near- and long-term solutions.
Fifteen raters individually, and in five teams of three, evaluated the test-retest repeatability of published data collection and rating methods of the Strain Index by analyzing 61 job video files twice over a 5-month period. Raters estimated average and peak hand forces, measured Duration of Exertion, cycle time, and exertions per job cycle, calculated percent Duration of Exertion and Efforts per Minute, and assigned ratings for five of the six Strain Index task variables. Twelve additional jobs were analyzed to determine Strain Index Score and hazard classification. Intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficients for task variable ratings and accompanying data ranged from 0.66 to 0.95 for both individuals and teams. The Strain Index Score ICC(2,1) for individuals and teams were 0.56 and 0.82, respectively. Intra-rater reliability for the hazard classification was 0.81 for individuals and 0.88 for teams. The results indicate that the Strain Index has good test-retest reliability.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.