ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2026
Ergonomics in Knee Arthroscopy: A Scoping Review.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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
Purpose: To evaluate the existing evidence regarding ergonomics in knee arthroscopy, including surgeon positioning, limb manipulation strategies, support devices, and reported ergonomic burden. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was performed from database inception to December 2025. Eligible studies addressed ergonomic considerations in knee arthroscopy. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, and findings were synthesized narratively. Results: The search identified 1013 records, of which 8 met the inclusion criteria. The literature consisted predominantly of descriptive technical reports, alongside cross-sectional questionnaires and 1 observational study. Routine knee arthroscopy involved sustained valgus and varus stress applied to the limb and non-neutral postures maintained by surgeons or assistants. Positioning aids and technical innovations have been proposed; however, none have undergone objective ergonomic assessment. Surgeon-reported data suggested that knee arthroscopy is ergonomically challenging and frequently associated with musculoskeletal discomfort. Conclusions: The review identified 8 studies examining ergonomics in knee arthroscopy, which predominantly consisted of descriptive technical reports lacking objective ergonomic assessment. Surgeon-reported data indicated that knee arthroscopy is frequently perceived as ergonomically challenging, with musculoskeletal discomfort most commonly affecting the lower back and shoulders. Clinical Relevance: Knee arthroscopy places substantial physical demand on surgeons. Mapping the ergonomic challenges and limitations associated with arthroscopy may help inform future device innovation aimed at reducing work-related musculoskeletal injury.
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.