ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Assessment methods for surgeons' ergonomics in the operating room: a scoping review.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErgonomics is essential for ensuring safe, high-quality surgical care. However, existing studies vary widely in their clinical settings, terminology, and assessment methods. This scoping review aimed to map the terminology and methods used to evaluate surgeons' ergonomics in real-world surgical environments.
methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, IEEE Xplore, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to July 1, 2025 for studies that assessed physical, cognitive, or organizational ergonomics. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed full texts, and extracted study characteristics and outcomes. Assessment tools were categorized as self-reported, observational, direct or instrumental, or computer based. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251088370).
resultsNinety-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Minimally invasive surgery predominated: 60 studies involved laparoscopic surgery (including thoracoscopic and other endoscopic minimally invasive approaches), and 36 evaluated robotic surgery. Comparative designs most frequently compared laparoscopic versus robotic surgery (n = 14). Physical, cognitive, and organizational ergonomics were assessed in 64, 49, and 19 studies, respectively, with 31 addressing multiple domains. Considerable variation was observed in terminology and assessment methods. Physical ergonomics was most commonly evaluated using observational or instrumental approaches, whereas cognitive ergonomics primarily relied on self-reported measures. Computer-based assessments, including artificial intelligence-assisted tools, have recently emerged.
conclusionThis review provides a structured framework for assessing ergonomics in surgery and highlights substantial heterogeneity in terminology and assessment methods. Standardized, multimodal, and objective approaches are needed to enhance comparability across studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42545525What 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.