Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries.

BACKGROUND: We conducted this study to investigate how physical and cognitive ergonomic workloads would differ between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries and whether any ergonomic differences would be related to surgeons' robotic surgery skill level. Our hypothesis is that the unique features in robotic surgery will demonstrate skill-related results both in substantially less physical and cognitive workload and uncompromised task performance. METHODS: Thirteen MIS surgeons were recruited for this institutional review board-approved study and divided into three groups based on their robotic surgery experiences: laparoscopy experts with no robotic experience, novices with no or little robotic experience, and robotic experts. Each participant performed six surgical training tasks using traditional laparoscopy and robotic surgery. Physical workload was assessed by using surface electromyography from eight muscles (biceps, triceps, deltoid, trapezius, flexor carpi ulnaris, extensor digitorum, thenar compartment, and erector spinae). Mental workload assessment was conducted using the NASA-TLX. RESULTS: The cumulative muscular workload (CMW) from the biceps and the flexor carpi ulnaris with robotic surgery was significantly lower than with laparoscopy (p < 0.05). Interestingly, the CMW from the trapezius was significantly higher with robotic surgery than with laparoscopy (p < 0.05), but this difference was only observed in laparoscopic experts (LEs) and robotic surgery novices. NASA-TLX analysis showed that both robotic surgery novices and experts expressed lower global workloads with robotic surgery than with laparoscopy, whereas LEs showed higher global workload with robotic surgery (p > 0.05). Robotic surgery experts and novices had significantly higher performance scores with robotic surgery than with laparoscopy (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the physical and cognitive ergonomics with robotic surgery were significantly less challenging. Additionally, several ergonomic components were skill-related. Robotic experts could benefit the most from the ergonomic advantages in robotic surgery. These results emphasize the need for well-structured training and well-defined ergonomics guidelines to maximize the benefits utilizing the robotic surgery.

Higher physical workload risks with NOTES versus laparoscopy: a quantitative ergonomic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Research confirms that surgeons experience physical symptoms due to the unfavorable ergonomics of laparoscopy. The physical effects of performing Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES)-potentially the next evolutionary surgical step-are only now being quantitatively and systematically assessed. This study investigates NOTES- and laparoscopy-related physical workloads through biomechanical analyses. METHODS: Fourteen surgeons with varying laparoscopic experience were recruited. Each participant completed ring transfer and triangle transfer tasks using two surgical platforms: laparoscopy and NOTES. Motion capture and electromyography (EMG) systems recorded biomechanical data for quantitative physical workload assessment. The normalized cumulative muscular workload (NCMW) and mean muscular workload (MMW) were obtained from EMG data. Then normalized performance time (NPT) was compared between the two surgical platforms. The overall NCMW was considerably greater when participants performed tasks using the NOTES platform (1315.8±116.9%) compared with traditional laparoscopy (153.9±18.8%). RESULTS: Performing NOTES required eight to nine times higher muscular workload (NCMW: NOTES 1315.8%, laparoscopy 153.9%, p<0.05) when compared with traditional laparoscopy. This result was shown to be caused by the following: (1) six to eight times longer NPT with NOTES (p<0.05) and (2) higher average activation levels shown in regard to biceps, extensor digitorum communis, and thenar compartment (p<0.05), the muscles responsible for specific joint movements to hold and operate the scope. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that performing NOTES is significantly more challenging for surgeons than laparoscopy. The greater amount of muscular exertion required is linked to higher ergonomic risks. Based on the depth and strength of our results, we propose that an alternative NOTES platform be designed, one that overcomes the awkward operational mechanism of the dual-working-channel flexible endoscope.