PubMed · 3353264
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P Wood. A repetitive problem.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3353264/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Laparoscopic surgery provides patients with less painful surgery and a more rapid recovery, while requiring that surgeons work harder and in a more remote manner from the operating field. Cost-containment pressures on surgeons demand efficient surgery, whereas the increased technological complexity and sometimes poorly adapted equipment have led to increased complaints of surgeon fatigue and discomfort during laparoscopic surgery. There is, therefore, a need to evaluate the ergonomic integration and suitability of the laparoscopic operating room environment to address the issues of efficiency, safety, and comfort for the operating team. This approach is particularly important in the design of laparoscopic surgical instruments. A review of the literature on the biomechanics of laparoscopic surgical instrument use was combined with data from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Ergonomics Questionnaire and demonstration station. Laparoscopic instruments suffer from ergonomically inadequate handle designs and inefficient handle to tip force transmission, which lead to surgeon fatigue, discomfort, and hand paresthesias. Improvements in the design of laparoscopic instruments are needed to decrease the work and discomfort of tissue manipulation during video-endoscopic surgery.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic instruments incorporate both in-line and pistol-grip handle configurations, yet it is unclear which design is most advantageous for surgeons, particularly when operating at angles perpendicular to the surgeon's position. We present a detailed electromyographic (EMG) comparison of these handle configurations under different force and angle conditions. METHODS: Nine general surgeons used a Microsurge grasper with the handle in an in-line (MS-IL) and pistol (MS-PS) configuration, as well as a standard hemostat (HE), to grasp and close two spring-loaded metal plates. The task was performed randomly by each subject with the three instrument configurations at two forces levels (0.7 N, 4.2 N) and at three angles to the surgeons' body (0, 45, and 90 degrees). Surface EMG was measured from the flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU), flexor digitorum profundus (FDP), flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS), extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU), extensor digitorum comunis (EDC), and thenar compartment (TH). The peak root mean squared (RMS) EMG voltage was calculated for each instrument, force, and angle condition. Statistical comparison was carried out by ANOVA. RESULTS: Both laparoscopic handle configurations required significantly higher contractions of all muscle groups compared to the hemostat at the high force level. TH was not affected by laparoscopic handle configuration. MS-IL required higher FCU, ECU, and EDC contractions at 45 degrees compared to MS-PS. However, MS-IL decreased the flexor compartment muscle contractions (FDP, FDS, FCU) at 90 degrees compared to MS-PS. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic grasping requires higher forearm and thumb muscle contractions compared to the use of a hemostat. The in-line handle configuration is no better than the pistol configuration except when grasping at 90 degrees to the surgeon, where rotation of the handle and wrist back toward the surgeon significantly decreases forearm flexor compartment muscle contractions.