SynthesisFrontiers in public health2023
Advances in objective assessment of ergonomics in endoscopic surgery: a review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic cholecystectomy using a wireless intelligent endoscopic system versus a conventional wired system: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2026Trial
- Ergonomics in Knee Arthroscopy: A Scoping Review.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive surgery, in particular endoscopic surgery, has revolutionized the benefits for patients, but poses greater challenges for surgeons in terms of ergonomics. Integrating ergonomic assessments and interventions into the multi-stage endoscopic procedure contributes to the surgeon's musculoskeletal health and the patient's intraoperative safety and postoperative recovery. Objective: The purpose of this study was to overview the objective assessment techniques, tools and assessment settings involved in endoscopic procedures over the past decade and to identify the potential factors that induce differences in high workloads in endoscopic procedures and ultimately to design a framework for ergonomic assessment in endoscopic surgery. Methods: Literature searches were systematically conducted in the OVID, pubmed and web of science database before October 2022, and studies evaluating ergonomics during the process of endoscopic procedures or simulated procedures were both recognized. Results: Our systematic review of 56 studies underscores ergonomic variations in endoscopic surgery. While endoscopic procedures, predominantly laparoscopy, typically incur less physical load than open surgery, extended surgical durations notably elevate ergonomic risks. Surgeon characteristics, such as experience level and gender, significantly influence these risks, with less experienced and female surgeons facing greater challenges. Key assessment tools employed include electromyography for muscle fatigue and motion analysis for postural evaluation. Conclusion: This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis and framework of objective ergonomic assessments in endoscopic surgery, and suggesting avenues for future research and intervention strategies. By improving the ergonomic conditions for surgeons, we can enhance their overall health, mitigate the risk of WMSDs, and ultimately improve patient outcomes.
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.