4.4 Article

Ergonomic Evaluation and Guidelines for Use of the daVinci Robot System

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 371-375

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/end.2009.0197

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The daVinci Robot system has been widely lauded for its improved ergonomic characteristics when compared with the pure laparoscopic technique. Our goal in this study was to assess for the existence of guidelines to maximize the ergonomic benefits of the daVinci system. We also compared the surgeon's console with the recommendations of similar workstations. Methods: A literature review of seated ergonomics was performed to identify recommendations for work areas similar to the robotic system, where prolong seating is necessary. An upper body biomechanics and ergonomic expert was consulted to evaluate the daVinci system and aid in the formation of ergonomic positioning guidelines. Link-length proportions were used to evaluate size constraints of potential robot operators. Results: No published guidelines exist for proper positioning using the daVinci surgeon console. There are, however, several Occupational Safety and Health Administration workstation guidelines as well as microscope ergonomic guidelines. The use of link-length proportions showed that the surgeon console allows a comfortable posture for individuals with height between 64 and 73 inches. Review of the microscope ergonomics literature indicates that a neutral vertical seating position has been associated with decreased strain and musculoskeletal disorders. Conclusions: The body mechanics of the daVinci robot system best mimics that of microscopy. Future surgeon console modifications could emulate those reported in the microscope ergonomic literature, where a neutral vertical position has been recommended. This may help avoid potential musculoskeletal disorders similar to those previously seen with microscopy usage. Guidelines are suggested to optimize the surgeon's console position.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据