ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluating the surgical trainee ergonomic experience during minimally invasive abdominal surgery (ESTEEMA study).
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence-based ergonomic parameters for safer surgical practice: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Redefining surgical workflow efficiency: evaluation of a novel laparoscopic multi-tool prototype.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Practice of ergonomics in laparoscopic gynecological surgeries and its effects on surgeons in a low-middle income country.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive abdominal surgery (MAS) can exert a physical cost. Surgical trainees spend years assisting minimally-invasive surgeries, increasing the risk of workplace injury. This prospective questionnaire-based cohort study was conducted amongst general surgery residents in Singapore. Residents assisting major MAS surgery were invited to complete anonymous online survey forms after surgery. The Phase 1 survey assessed physical discomfort scores and risk factors. Intraoperative measures to improve ergonomics were administered and evaluated in Phase 2. During Phase 1 (October 2021 to April 2022), physical discomfort was reported in at least one body part in 82.6% (n = 38) of respondents. Over a third of respondents reported severe discomfort in at least one body part (n = 17, 37.0%). Extremes of height, training seniority, longer surgical duration and operative complexity were significant risk factors for greater physical discomfort. In Phase 2 (October 2022 to February 2023), the overall rate of physical symptoms and severe discomfort improved to 81.3% (n = 52) and 34.4% (n = 22) respectively. The ergonomic measure most found useful was having separate television monitors for the primary surgeon and assistants, followed by intraoperative feedback on television monitor angle or position. Close to 20% of survey respondents felt that surgeon education was likely to improve physical discomfort.
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.