Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2014
Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of ergonomic and muscular strain in surgeons comparing robotic to laparoscopic approaches.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The Use of Wearable Systems for Assessing Work-Related Risks Related to the Musculoskeletal System-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- The evidence behind robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Advances in objective assessment of ergonomics in endoscopic surgery: a review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Are Surgeons Working Smarter or Harder? A Systematic Review Comparing the Physical and Mental Demands of Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Surgery.World journal of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Self-reported prevalence of injury and discomfort experienced by surgeons performing traditional and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis demonstrating the value of RALS for surgeons.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Muscle activation during traditional laparoscopic surgery compared with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Musculoskeletal pain among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Pooled it
- Adaptative damping assistance in bimanual laparoscopic surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023Trial
- Physical and Mental Impact of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy on the Surgeon: French vs. American Positions. A Randomized and Controlled Study.Obesity surgery · 2019Trial
- "Alarm-corrected" ergonomic armrest use could improve learning curves of novices on robotic simulator.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Trial
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Autonomous RCM-less endoscope control: integrating force-based pivoting with deep learning visual servoing.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Electromyography in abdominal laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Developing and external validating a prediction model using machine learning and logistic regression: informing the surgical approach for robotic surgery based on preoperative MRI.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive Distal Pancreatectomy eRgonOMic analysis - the DP-ROM trial: An explorative, prospective, observational, cohort study trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Evaluating the ergonomic aspects of laparoscopic energy devices: combination of a survey and a kinesiologic experiment.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Ergonomic strain of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (ESRALI)-a crossover trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Comparative analysis of disruptive events in robotic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Ergonomic differences in mesh placement and mesh fixation between laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair with mesh.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany laparoscopic surgeons report musculoskeletal symptoms that are thought to be related to the ergonomic stress of performing laparoscopy. Robotic surgical systems may address many of these limitations. To date, however, there have been no studies exploring the quantitative ergonomics of robotic surgery. In this study, we sought to compare the activation of bilateral biceps, triceps, deltoid, and trapezius muscle groups during traditional laparoscopic surgery (TLS) and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) procedures, as quantified by surface electromyography (sEMG).
methodsOne surgeon with expertise in TLS and RALS performed 18 operative procedures (13 TLS, 5 RALS) while sEMG measurements were obtained from bilateral biceps, triceps, deltoid, and trapezius muscles. sEMG measurements were normalized to the maximum voluntary contraction of each muscle (%MVC). We compared mean %MVC values for each muscle group during TLS and RALS with unpaired t-tests and considered differences with a p value <0.05 to be statistically significant.
resultsMuscle activation was higher during TLS compared to RALS in bilateral biceps (L Biceps RALS:1.01%MVC, L Biceps TLS:3.14, p = 0.01; R Biceps RALS:1.81%MVC, R Biceps TLS:4.53, p = 0.0002). Muscle activation was higher during TLS compared to RALS in bilateral triceps (L Triceps RALS:1.73%MVC, L Triceps TLS:3.58, p = 0.04; R Triceps RALS:1.59%MVC, R Triceps TLS:5.11, p = 0.02). Muscle activation was higher during TLS compared to RALS in bilateral deltoids (L Deltoid RALS:1.50%MVC, L Deltoid TLS:3.68, p = 0.03; R Deltoid RALS:1.19%MVC, R Deltoid TLS:2.57, p = 0.01). Significant differences were not detected in the bilateral trapezius muscles (L Trapezius RALS:1.50 %MVC, L Trapezius TLS:3.68, p = 0.03; R Trapezius RALS:1.19%MVC, R Trapezius TLS:2.57, p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: We have quantitatively examined the ergonomics of TLS and RALS and shown that in a single surgeon, TLS procedures are associated with significantly elevated biceps, triceps, and deltoid activation bilaterally when compared to RALS procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.