ArticleBMC surgery2026
Perceived ergonomic and psychological experiences with powered circular staplers among female gastrointestinal surgeons: an exploratory cross-sectional survey in Japan.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional surgical instruments are often designed based on assumptions regarding hand size and grip strength that may not reflect the physical characteristics of all surgeons. Circular staplers require substantial manual force during firing and may be associated with perceived ergonomic burden and psychological stress during anastomosis. Powered circular staplers have been introduced to reduce manual effort; however, limited information is available regarding surgeons' subjective experiences with these devices. This exploratory study aimed to examine perceived ergonomic and psychological experiences related to powered circular stapler use among female gastrointestinal surgeons in Japan.
methodsThis small exploratory cross-sectional survey used an anonymous web-based survey conducted between January and March 2021. Female gastrointestinal surgeons in Japan with experience using powered circular staplers were recruited through professional networks using a snowball sampling approach. The survey focused on self-reported perceptions of ergonomic workload, psychological stress during stapler firing, and usability impressions of powered circular staplers. Given the exploratory design and limited sample size, analyses were descriptive only and no inferential statistics were applied.
resultsTwenty-five female surgeons responded to the survey. Thirteen respondents (52%) reported that some surgical instruments were too large for their hands, and 20 surgeons (80%) perceived strength limitations with some devices. With conventional manual circular staplers, most participants (24/25, 96%) required both hands to fire the device and reported stress or perceived instability during firing. Among respondents with experience using powered circular staplers, many reported that the devices were easier to handle and less stressful. Sixteen surgeons (64%) reported perceived single-hand operability, and a similar proportion reported perceived improvements in procedural stability. Qualitative comments indicated subjective impressions of reduced physical effort and anxiety.
conclusionsIn this small exploratory survey, powered circular staplers were perceived by female gastrointestinal surgeons as being easier to handle and less stressful to use during anastomosis. These findings reflect self-reported perceptions rather than objective ergonomic or clinical outcomes, and causal relationships cannot be established. These findings are hypothesis-generating and suggest that further studies incorporating objective ergonomic measurements and broader surgeon populations are warranted.
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.