4.2 Article

A comparison of surgeon's postural muscle activity during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 305-308

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-012-0374-z

关键词

Electromyography; Ergonomics; Surgeons; Robotic; Laparoscopic; Low anterior resection

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the muscular activity in the surgeon's neck and upper limbs during robotic-assisted laparoscopic (R-Lap) surgery and conventional laparoscopic (C-Lap) surgery. Two surgeons performed the same procedure of R-Lap and C-Lap low anterior resection, and real-time surface electromyography was recorded in bilateral cervical erector spinae, upper trapezius (UT) and anterior deltoid muscles for over 60 min in each procedure. In one surgeon, forearm muscle activities were also recorded during robotic surgery. Similar levels of cervical muscle activity were demonstrated in both types of surgery. One surgeon showed much higher activity in the left UT muscle during robotic surgery. In the second surgeon, C-Lap was associated with much higher levels of muscle activity in both UT muscles. This may be related to the bilateral abducted arm posture required in maneuvering the laparoscopic instruments. In the forearm region, the ''ulnaris'' muscles for wrist flexion and extension bilaterally showed high amplitudes during robotic-assisted surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery seemed to demand a higher level of muscle work in the forearm region while greater efforts of shoulder muscles were involved during laparoscopic surgery. There are also individual variations in postural habits and motor control that can affect the muscle activation patterns. This study demonstrated a method of objectively examining the surgeon's physical workload during real-time surgery in the operating theatre, and further research should explore the surgeon's workload in a larger group of surgeons performing different surgical procedures.

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

4.2
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