ArticleOTO open
Ergonomics of Various Modalities for Ear Surgery.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective evaluation of the VITOM 3D exoscope in ear surgery compared with surgical microscopes: part II-optical performance, handling, workload and ergonomics.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Trial
- Ear Surgery Training: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Microscopic vs. exoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for rathke's cleft cyst- a retrospective single center study.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Cochlear implant surgery using the 4 K-three-dimensional exoscope ORBEYE: a comparative study with conventional operative microscope.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor "Cochlear implant surgery using the 4 K-three-dimensional exoscope ORBEYE: a comparative study with conventional operative microscope".European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Ear Surgery: Minimally Invasive, Maximum Views.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Ergonomics of 3D-Exoscope Versus the Operating Microscope in Otologic Surgery.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- The 3D-Robotic Exoscope Compared With the Microscope in Cochlear Implant and Translabyrinthine Surgery.The Laryngoscope · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Evaluate ergonomic differences of various modalities for performing middle ear surgery. Study Design: Observational study. Setting: Two academic tertiary care centers. Methods: Attending physicians and residents performing middle ear surgery were photographed intraoperatively. Intraoperative photographs were analyzed using the validated Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) tool to measure musculoskeletal disease (MSD) risk. Descriptive statistics and significance testing were used to characterize and compare ergonomic differences between surgical modalities. Multivariable ordinal regression was performed to assess factors associated with increased MSD risk, as determined by the final RULA score. Results: Most of our 110 intraoperative photos featured attendings (82.7%) performing combined middle ear surgery and mastoidectomy (60.0%). Body angles and the final RULA score varied significantly among modalities. On subset analysis, microscopic surgery exhibited significantly worse wrist, trunk, and neck angles compared to endoscopic and exoscopic surgery. Exoscopic surgery had significantly lower final RULA scores than both endoscopic and microscopic surgery, indicating significantly lower MSD risk. Microscopic and endoscopic surgery final scores did not vary significantly. In a multivariable ordinal regression of factors associated with increased RULA score, exoscopic surgery had statistically significantly less ergonomic risk relative to microscopic surgery (odds ratio = 0.12, 95% confidence interval = [0.03-0.43]). Conclusion: Exoscopic, endoscopic, and microscopic surgery all featured low ergonomic risk, although exoscopic middle ear surgery demonstrated the lowest risk profile among studied surgical modalities. This demonstrates the importance of using each modality in combination with other ergonomic interventions to provide meaningful musculoskeletal benefits.
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.