ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Ergonomic analysis of laparoscopic and robotic surgical task performance at various experience levels.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 30 papers, 5 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Costs of robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Advances in objective assessment of ergonomics in endoscopic surgery: a review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Should All Minimal Access Surgery Be Robot-Assisted? A Systematic Review into the Musculoskeletal and Cognitive Demands of Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022Pooled 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
- Muscle activation during traditional laparoscopic surgery compared with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of a full clinical workday on surgical performance in simulated laparoscopy: a controlled crossover trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Robotic assisted surgery reduces ergonomic risk during minimally invasive colorectal resection: the VOLCANO randomised controlled trial.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Trial
- Transference of skills in robotic vs. laparoscopic simulation: a randomized controlled trial.BMC surgery · 2021Trial
- Robotics in Pediatric Surgery: Expanding Indications and Techniques.The Surgical clinics of North America · 2026Review
- Comparison of the efficacy of different models of KangDuo surgical robots and the da Vinci surgical robots in partial nephrectomy of RENAL score ≤9 tumors.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Rethinking health technology assessment in robotic surgery: an EFISDS-TROGSS position paper. Official position paper of the European Federation - International Society for Digestive Surgery (EFISDS) and The Robotic Global Surgical Society (TROGSS).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted antireflux surgery: a matched cohort analysis of procedure costs and outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Workload and usability evaluation of the da Vinci SP and Xi during low anterior resections.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Electromyography in abdominal laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluating the ergonomic aspects of laparoscopic energy devices: combination of a survey and a kinesiologic experiment.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- SAGES tool for assessing robotic surgery systems (STARSS).Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Validation of the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator for patients with paraoesophageal hernias undergoing robotic repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Ergonomic strain of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (ESRALI)-a crossover trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- 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
- Cologne ergonomic measurement for robotic surgery (CEMRobSurg) using the Hugo™ RAS System.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTraditional laparoscopic surgery (TLS) has increasingly been associated with physical muscle strain for the operating surgeon. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) may offer improved ergonomics. Ergonomics for the surgeon on these two platforms can be compared using surface electromyography (sEMG) to measure muscle activation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NTLX) survey to assess workload subjectively.
methodsSubjects were recruited and divided into groups according to level of expertise in traditional laparoscopic (TLS) and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS): novice, traditional laparoscopic surgeons (TL surgeons), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeons (RAL surgeons). Each subject performed three fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) tasks in randomized order while sEMG data were obtained from bilateral biceps, triceps, deltoid, and trapezius muscles. After completing all tasks, subjects completed the NTLX survey. sEMG data normalized to the maximum voluntary contraction of each muscle (MVC%), and NTLX data were compared with unpaired t tests and considered significant with a p ≤ 0.05.
resultsMuscle activation was higher during TLS compared to RALS in most muscle groups for novices except for the trapezius muscles. Muscle activation scores were also higher for TLS among the groups with more experience, but the differences were less significant. NTLX scores were higher for the TLS platform compared to the RALS platform for novices. DISCUSSION: TLS is associated with higher muscle activation in all muscle groups except for trapezius muscles, suggesting greater strain on the surgeon. Increased trapezius muscle activation on RALS has previously been documented and is likely due to the position of the eye piece. The differences seen in muscle activation diminish with increasing levels of expertise. Experience likely mitigates the ergonomic disadvantage of TLS. NTLX survey data suggest there are subjective benefits to RALS, namely in the perception of temporal demand. Further research to correlate NTLX data and sEMG measurements, and to investigate whether these metrics affect patient outcomes is warranted.
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.