Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31583468›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2020

Muscle activation during traditional laparoscopic surgery compared with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.

Jaime Hislop, Oren Tirosh, John McCormick, Romesh Nagarajah, Chris Hensman, Mats Isaksson

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Cognitive ergonomics and robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Surgical stress: the muscle and cognitive demands of robotic and laparoscopic surgery.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics.Journal of robotic surgery · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jaime HislopDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Product Design Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. jhislop@swin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2023-8601
Oren TiroshSchool of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
John McCormickCentre for Transformative Media Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Romesh NagarajahSchool of Software and Electrical Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Chris HensmanFRACS, CLAM Conjoint Senior lecturer Monash University Department of Surgery and University of Adelaide, University of Adelaide, LapSurgery Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
Mats IsakssonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Product Design Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Swinburne University of Technology · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe repetitive and forceful motions used by operating surgeons increase the risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders. Most ergonomists consider the surgical environment to be incredibly harsh for its workers. Traditional Laparoscopic Surgery (TLS) in particular has a number of physical and mental challenges associated with it, and while Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery (RALS) provides several features that improve upon TLS, some surgeons have still reported musculoskeletal symptoms they attribute to RALS. In this paper, we endeavored to systematically review muscle activation for both TLS and RALS, to compare the modalities and present the results as a meta-analysis.

methodsA literature search was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases in November 2018 with the following inclusion criteria: full text was available in English, the paper contained original data, EMG was one of the primary measurement techniques, and the paper included EMG data for both TLS and RALS. Results from studies were compared using standardized mean difference analysis.

resultsA total of 379 papers were found, and through screening ten were selected for inclusion. Sample populations ranged from 1 to 31 surgeons, and a variety of study designs and metrics were used between studies. The biceps were the only muscle group that consistently and significantly demonstrated lower muscle activation for RALS for all included studies.

conclusionsThe results may support the belief that RALS is ergonomically superior to TLS, shown through generally lower muscle activation scores. However, these results must be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity between the studies and multiple potential sources for bias within studies. This analysis would be strengthened with a higher number of homogenous, high-quality studies examining larger sample sizes.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal DiseasesOccupational HealthSurgeonsErgonomicsHumansLaparoscopyMuscle, SkeletalRobotic Surgical ProceduresElectromyographyMusculoskeletal disordersRobot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS)Traditional laparoscopic surgery (TLS)

Identifiers

PMID31583468
OpenAlexW2978080240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.