Articulating vs. conventional laparoscopic grasping tools - Surgeons' opinions

A. E. Trejo, K. N. Doné, A. A. DiMartino, Dmitry Oleynikov, M. S. Hallbeck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

An ergonomically designed articulating laparoscopic prototype tool was developed based on task analyses, evaluation of current tools and surgeon's opinions. A questionnaire was developed to compare the prototype developed to conventional laparoscopic surgical grasping tools. Thirty-eight surgeons evaluated the prototype tool and shared their opinions via a written survey. Surgeons were asked about problems they experience with use of conventional grasper tools and then gave evaluations of the prototype grasper tool. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to statistically analyze the questions. Results showed that a significant number of surgeons experience problems in each of fourteen problem areas, including physical (e.g. pain, stiffness and inability to perform precision motions) and cognitive (e.g. mental fatigue) difficulties. The responses had up to a 66% rate of experience by surgeons, with an alarming 29% of surgeons reporting numbness of the fingers or thumb after surgery with conventional tools. When asked to evaluate the prototype grasper, surgeons preferred the articulating prototype grasper to a conventional grasper, felt the prototype would alleviate discomfort caused by conventional tools and would be easier to manipulate. Laparoscopic surgery requires surgeons to perform complex operative procedures using a standardized set of tools. The surgeon performs the operation with surgical tools and video cameras that are inserted into the patient through port sites (trocars). Surgical tools used in laparoscopic surgery are still being developed, and many have been adapted from conventional surgical tools by adding a long (45-52 cm) stylus to fit through the trocar, putting the handle at a right angle to the long axis (shaft) of the tool. Although the advantages of minimally invasive surgery have been clearly established for the patient, studies have shown that the surgeon is faced with numerous disadvantages caused by poorly designed instrument handles, including the potential of harm to the surgeon due to awkward postures, high repetition and high force exertions and the likelihood of harm to the patient due to poorly designed tools. Thus, there is a crucial need to develop and assess laparoscopic tools that more fully address the needs of laparoscopic surgery and its surgeons.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)25-35
Number of pages11
JournalInternational Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
Volume36
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2006

Fingerprint

Surgery
surgery
Laparoscopy
Surgical Instruments
Surgeons
Mental Fatigue
Patient Harm
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Hypesthesia
Thumb
Operative Surgical Procedures
Nonparametric Statistics
Posture
experience
Fingers
Video cameras
evaluation
fatigue
pain
Pain

Keywords

  • Articulating end effector
  • Ergonomic design
  • Laparoscopy
  • Surgical tools

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Articulating vs. conventional laparoscopic grasping tools - Surgeons' opinions. / Trejo, A. E.; Doné, K. N.; DiMartino, A. A.; Oleynikov, Dmitry; Hallbeck, M. S.

In: International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 36, No. 1, 01.01.2006, p. 25-35.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Trejo, A. E. ; Doné, K. N. ; DiMartino, A. A. ; Oleynikov, Dmitry ; Hallbeck, M. S. / Articulating vs. conventional laparoscopic grasping tools - Surgeons' opinions. In: International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2006 ; Vol. 36, No. 1. pp. 25-35.
@article{94c6c455daf44faab983194aac2850af,
title = "Articulating vs. conventional laparoscopic grasping tools - Surgeons' opinions",
abstract = "An ergonomically designed articulating laparoscopic prototype tool was developed based on task analyses, evaluation of current tools and surgeon's opinions. A questionnaire was developed to compare the prototype developed to conventional laparoscopic surgical grasping tools. Thirty-eight surgeons evaluated the prototype tool and shared their opinions via a written survey. Surgeons were asked about problems they experience with use of conventional grasper tools and then gave evaluations of the prototype grasper tool. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to statistically analyze the questions. Results showed that a significant number of surgeons experience problems in each of fourteen problem areas, including physical (e.g. pain, stiffness and inability to perform precision motions) and cognitive (e.g. mental fatigue) difficulties. The responses had up to a 66{\%} rate of experience by surgeons, with an alarming 29{\%} of surgeons reporting numbness of the fingers or thumb after surgery with conventional tools. When asked to evaluate the prototype grasper, surgeons preferred the articulating prototype grasper to a conventional grasper, felt the prototype would alleviate discomfort caused by conventional tools and would be easier to manipulate. Laparoscopic surgery requires surgeons to perform complex operative procedures using a standardized set of tools. The surgeon performs the operation with surgical tools and video cameras that are inserted into the patient through port sites (trocars). Surgical tools used in laparoscopic surgery are still being developed, and many have been adapted from conventional surgical tools by adding a long (45-52 cm) stylus to fit through the trocar, putting the handle at a right angle to the long axis (shaft) of the tool. Although the advantages of minimally invasive surgery have been clearly established for the patient, studies have shown that the surgeon is faced with numerous disadvantages caused by poorly designed instrument handles, including the potential of harm to the surgeon due to awkward postures, high repetition and high force exertions and the likelihood of harm to the patient due to poorly designed tools. Thus, there is a crucial need to develop and assess laparoscopic tools that more fully address the needs of laparoscopic surgery and its surgeons.",
keywords = "Articulating end effector, Ergonomic design, Laparoscopy, Surgical tools",
author = "Trejo, {A. E.} and Don{\'e}, {K. N.} and DiMartino, {A. A.} and Dmitry Oleynikov and Hallbeck, {M. S.}",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ergon.2005.06.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "25--35",
journal = "International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics",
issn = "0169-8141",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Articulating vs. conventional laparoscopic grasping tools - Surgeons' opinions

AU - Trejo, A. E.

AU - Doné, K. N.

AU - DiMartino, A. A.

AU - Oleynikov, Dmitry

AU - Hallbeck, M. S.

PY - 2006/1/1

Y1 - 2006/1/1

N2 - An ergonomically designed articulating laparoscopic prototype tool was developed based on task analyses, evaluation of current tools and surgeon's opinions. A questionnaire was developed to compare the prototype developed to conventional laparoscopic surgical grasping tools. Thirty-eight surgeons evaluated the prototype tool and shared their opinions via a written survey. Surgeons were asked about problems they experience with use of conventional grasper tools and then gave evaluations of the prototype grasper tool. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to statistically analyze the questions. Results showed that a significant number of surgeons experience problems in each of fourteen problem areas, including physical (e.g. pain, stiffness and inability to perform precision motions) and cognitive (e.g. mental fatigue) difficulties. The responses had up to a 66% rate of experience by surgeons, with an alarming 29% of surgeons reporting numbness of the fingers or thumb after surgery with conventional tools. When asked to evaluate the prototype grasper, surgeons preferred the articulating prototype grasper to a conventional grasper, felt the prototype would alleviate discomfort caused by conventional tools and would be easier to manipulate. Laparoscopic surgery requires surgeons to perform complex operative procedures using a standardized set of tools. The surgeon performs the operation with surgical tools and video cameras that are inserted into the patient through port sites (trocars). Surgical tools used in laparoscopic surgery are still being developed, and many have been adapted from conventional surgical tools by adding a long (45-52 cm) stylus to fit through the trocar, putting the handle at a right angle to the long axis (shaft) of the tool. Although the advantages of minimally invasive surgery have been clearly established for the patient, studies have shown that the surgeon is faced with numerous disadvantages caused by poorly designed instrument handles, including the potential of harm to the surgeon due to awkward postures, high repetition and high force exertions and the likelihood of harm to the patient due to poorly designed tools. Thus, there is a crucial need to develop and assess laparoscopic tools that more fully address the needs of laparoscopic surgery and its surgeons.

AB - An ergonomically designed articulating laparoscopic prototype tool was developed based on task analyses, evaluation of current tools and surgeon's opinions. A questionnaire was developed to compare the prototype developed to conventional laparoscopic surgical grasping tools. Thirty-eight surgeons evaluated the prototype tool and shared their opinions via a written survey. Surgeons were asked about problems they experience with use of conventional grasper tools and then gave evaluations of the prototype grasper tool. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to statistically analyze the questions. Results showed that a significant number of surgeons experience problems in each of fourteen problem areas, including physical (e.g. pain, stiffness and inability to perform precision motions) and cognitive (e.g. mental fatigue) difficulties. The responses had up to a 66% rate of experience by surgeons, with an alarming 29% of surgeons reporting numbness of the fingers or thumb after surgery with conventional tools. When asked to evaluate the prototype grasper, surgeons preferred the articulating prototype grasper to a conventional grasper, felt the prototype would alleviate discomfort caused by conventional tools and would be easier to manipulate. Laparoscopic surgery requires surgeons to perform complex operative procedures using a standardized set of tools. The surgeon performs the operation with surgical tools and video cameras that are inserted into the patient through port sites (trocars). Surgical tools used in laparoscopic surgery are still being developed, and many have been adapted from conventional surgical tools by adding a long (45-52 cm) stylus to fit through the trocar, putting the handle at a right angle to the long axis (shaft) of the tool. Although the advantages of minimally invasive surgery have been clearly established for the patient, studies have shown that the surgeon is faced with numerous disadvantages caused by poorly designed instrument handles, including the potential of harm to the surgeon due to awkward postures, high repetition and high force exertions and the likelihood of harm to the patient due to poorly designed tools. Thus, there is a crucial need to develop and assess laparoscopic tools that more fully address the needs of laparoscopic surgery and its surgeons.

KW - Articulating end effector

KW - Ergonomic design

KW - Laparoscopy

KW - Surgical tools

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=29944435443&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=29944435443&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ergon.2005.06.008

DO - 10.1016/j.ergon.2005.06.008

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 25

EP - 35

JO - International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

JF - International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

SN - 0169-8141

IS - 1

ER -