ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Who is hurting? A prospective study of surgeon ergonomics.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Robotic cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: is there a benefit?Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- A multimodal virtual vision platform as a next-generation vision system for a surgical robot.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024Article
- A Woman's Place Is in Theatre, but Are Theatres Designed with Women in Mind? A Systematic Review of Ergonomics for Women in Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
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
Abstract
backgroundThere is a paucity of prospective data related to surgeon ergonomics, which affects career longevity. Robotic surgical systems may mitigate pain and workload. We hypothesized that ergonomic outcomes would vary based on surgeon height and gender, and the relative benefit of robotic surgery would vary based on these demographics.
methodsSurgeons received questionnaires to fill out immediately before and after surgery to enable calculation of pain scores and task load. Surgeons who were ≤ 66 inches tall were considered "short". Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed where appropriate using Stata-MP version 14.2 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX).
resultsThere were 124 questionnaires given to 20 surgeons; 97 (78%) were returned, and 12 (12%) laparoscopic operations were excluded, leaving 85 (69%) questionnaires for further analysis: 33 (38%) from short surgeons, and 24 (28%) from women, for 30 (35%) robotic and 55 (65%) open operations. There were 44/85 (52%) surgeons who reported worse pain after surgery. Overall pain scores (1.1 ± 2.6 vs 1.5 ± 2.6, p = 0.70) were similar for robotic and open operations. In multivariable analysis, greater surgeon pain scores were significantly associated with short surgeons (p < 0.001), male surgeons (p < 0.001), and long operative times (p = 0.03). Physical demand was lower for robot vs open operations (median 10 vs 13, p = 0.03). When short surgeons (p = 0.04) and male surgeons (p = 0.03) were examined as sub-groups, lower physical demand during robotic operations persisted, but was lost when only examining tall surgeons (p = 0.07) and female surgeons (p = 0.13).
conclusionsShort surgeons and male surgeons reported significantly more pain after both open and robotic operations but had less physical demand when using the robotic system. Future work should focus on mitigation of surgeon height-related factors and seek to understand ergonomic gender differences beyond height.
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.