Using wearable technology for Posture Regulation to Improve Surgical Ergonomics in the paediatric operating room: the UPRISE trial: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders has numerous physical, financial, and mental repercussions for surgeons. This study aims to establish whether the use of a wearable posture device can improve the operating time spent in suboptimal, high-risk postures. METHODS: Surgeons were recruited in Phase 1 of this prospective randomised study and baseline postural data was obtained. In Phase 2, participants were randomised to receive either a traditional educational workshop or intraoperative vibrations from the device to correct postural lapses. During minor elective day cases, intraoperative postural data was collected and stratified by forward flexion angle, into five risk categories (negligible to very high). Participants' experience with the sensor was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 100 surgical procedures (Phase 1: n = 50; Phase 2: n = 50) were performed by eight surgeons of varying seniority. Exposure to the educational intervention increased time spent in suboptimal posture (Phase 1 vs. Phase 2); 47.5% vs. 67.8%, p = 0.05. However, the vibrational intervention significantly reduced this time; 50.0% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.005. Procedure type didn't influence posture although, laparoscopic interventions spent most time in negligible-risk postures; 47.7% vs. 49.3%, compared to open procedures. Surgical consultants spent less time in suboptimal posture compared to fellow/registrars; 30.3% vs. 72.6% (Phase 1) and 33.8% vs. 65.3% (Phase 2). CONCLUSION: Vibrational intervention from the device significantly decreased the time spent in suboptimal, high-risk postures. As procedure type wasn't correlated with postural changes, surgeon-specific factors in regulating posture are paramount. Finally, surgeon experience was positively correlated with improved surgical ergonomics.

Dyadic practice for the acquisition of laparoscopic skills (DALS)-A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic simulation is integral to surgical education but requires significant resources. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of dyadic practice (DP), involving two individuals working together, to individual practice (IP) for novices acquiring laparoscopic skills and assess their learning experience. METHODS: We conducted a Randomized Controlled Trial comparing DP and IP for novice medical students who completed a laparoscopic simulation workshop. Participants were assessed individually pre-course (test 1), post-course (test 2), and 8-week retention (test 3) using a validated quantitative method. A post-course questionnaire and interview, analyzed with thematic analysis, assessed the learning experience. RESULTS: In total, 31 DP and 35 IP participants completed the study. There was no difference in mean scores between DP and IP groups in all three tests: test 1 (p = 0.55), test 2 (p = 0.26), test 3 (p = 0.35). In trend analysis, the DP group improved post-course (test 1 vs. 2: p = 0.02) and maintained this level at the retention test (2 vs. 3: p = 0.80, 1 vs. 3: p = 0.02). Whilst the IP group also improved post-course (test 1 vs. 2: p < 0.001), this improvement was not retained (2 vs. 3: p = 0.003, 1 vs. 3: p = 0.32). Thematic analysis revealed that DP participants valued peer support, peer feedback and observation time, but also acknowledged the limitations of reduced practical time and issues with teamwork. CONCLUSION: DP is non-inferior to IP for novices learning laparoscopic skills, is well received and may lead to superior long-term skill retention.