Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ergonomic Considerations in Urologic Surgery

  • Education (G Badalato and E Margolin, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This paper aims to discuss the various work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMDs) among urologists and provide an overview of the latest recommendations to improve awareness of ergonomic principles that can be applied in the operating room, with special consideration of challenges faced during pregnancy.

Recent Findings

Urologists suffer from a large burden of WRMDs. The main drivers of pain associated with the various surgical approaches include repetitive movements, static and awkward body positions, and the use of burdensome equipment. Pregnant surgeons are at an even greater risk of WRMDs and face high rates of pregnancy complications.

Summary

Laparoscopy, endoscopy, robot-assisted surgeries, and open surgeries present unique ergonomic challenges for the practicing urologist. Proper posture and equipment use, optimal operating room setup, intraoperative stretching breaks, and an emphasis on teaching ergonomic principles can reduce the risk of WRMDs. Surgeons are also at increased risk of WRMDs during pregnancy but may continue to operate while taking measures to limit physical exertion and fatigue. Improving awareness of and incorporating ergonomic principles early in a urologist’s career may reduce the risk of injury and improve operative performance and longevity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Upon request, the authors of this manuscript are prepared to send relevant documentation in order to verify the validity of the data presented.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Hannah KJ, Ball MJ, Edwards MJ. Ergonomics. Introduction to nursing informatics. Health Informatics. New York: Springer; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Karwowski W, Rizzo F, Rodrick D. Ergonomics. In: Bidgoli H, editor. Encyclopedia of information systems. Boston: Elsevier; 2003. p. 185–201.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders and ergonomics. 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/health-strategies/musculoskeletal-disorders/index.html. Accessed 8 Sept 2022.

  4. Stucky CH, Cromwell KD, Voss RK, Chiang YJ, Woodman K, Lee JE, et al. Surgeon symptoms, strain, and selections: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical ergonomics. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2018;27:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.12.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Epstein S, Sparer EH, Tran BN, Ruan QZ, Dennerlein JT, Singhal D, et al. Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons and interventionalists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(2): e174947. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. • Loeb S, Kerr RR. Practicing urology take a physical toll. Urology Times. 2019;47(8). Surveyed practicing urologists who read their publication and reported on the prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders and the ways they have interfered with urologists' careers.

  7. • Lloyd GL, Chung ASJ, Steinberg S, Sawyer M, Williams DH, Overbey D. Is your career hurting you? The ergonomic consequences of surgery in 701 urologists worldwide. J Endourol. 2019;33(12):1037–42. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0150. Surveyed a multinational cohort of more than 700 urologists to assess the prevalence of work-related pain and identify factors that increase or decrease the risk of pain.

  8. Wolf JS Jr, Marcovich R, Gill IS, Sung GT, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, et al. Survey of neuromuscular injuries to the patient and surgeon during urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology. 2000;55(6):831–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00488-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dornbier R, Gonzalez CM. Workforce issues in urology. Urol Clin North Am. 2021;48(2):161–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2021.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Plerhoples TA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wren SM. The aching surgeon: a survey of physical discomfort and symptoms following open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2012;6(1):65–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0330-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tjiam IM, Goossens RH, Schout BM, Koldewijn EL, Hendrikx AJ, Muijtjens AM, et al. Ergonomics in endourology and laparoscopy: an overview of musculoskeletal problems in urology. J Endourol. 2014;28(5):605–11. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hemal AK, Srinivas M, Charles AR. Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2001;15(5):499–503. https://doi.org/10.1089/089277901750299294.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gofrit ON, Mikahail AA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL. Surgeons’ perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology. 2008;71(3):404–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.07.077.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bagrodia A, Raman JD. Ergonomics considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J Endourol. 2009;23(4):627–33. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hubert N, Gilles M, Desbrosses K, Meyer JP, Felblinger J, Hubert J. Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures. Int J Med Robot. 2013;9(2):142–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lawson EH, Curet MJ, Sanchez BR, Schuster R, Berguer R. Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. J Robot Surg. 2007;1(1):61–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-007-0016-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Guillotreau J, Gamé X, Mouzin M, Doumerc N, Mallet R, Sallusto F, et al. Radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: morbidity of laparoscopic versus open surgery. J Urol. 2009;181(2):554–9; discussion 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.011.

  18. Al-Rashedy M, Dadibhai M, Shareif A, Khandelwal MI, Ballester P, Abid G, et al. Laparoscopic gastric bypass for gastric outlet obstruction is associated with smoother, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay compared with open surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005;12(6):474–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-005-1013-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Björnsson B, Larsson AL, Hjalmarsson C, Gasslander T, Sandström P. Comparison of the duration of hospital stay after laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy: randomized controlled trial. Br J Surg. 2020;107(10):1281–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Etoh T, Honda M, Kumamaru H, Miyata H, Yoshida K, Kodera Y, et al. Morbidity and mortality from a propensity score-matched, prospective cohort study of laparoscopic versus open total gastrectomy for gastric cancer: data from a nationwide web-based database. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(6):2766–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5976-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. •• Gabrielson AT, Clifton MM, Pavlovich CP, Biles MJ, Huang M, Agnew J, et al. Surgical ergonomics for urologists: a practical guide. Nat Rev Urol. 2021;18(3):160–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-00414-4. Provided a comprehensive review of ergonomic recommendations for the practicing urologist and identified areas for future improvement.

  22. Berguer R, Rab GT, Abu-Ghaida H, Alarcon A, Chung J. A comparison of surgeons’ posture during laparoscopic and open surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 1997;11(2):139–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900316.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nguyen NT, Ho HS, Smith WD, Philipps C, Lewis C, De Vera RM, et al. An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons’ axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during laparoscopic and open surgery. Am J Surg. 2001;182(6):720–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(01)00801-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Frede T, Stock C, Renner C, Budair Z, Abdel-Salam Y, Rassweiler J. Geometry of laparoscopic suturing and knotting techniques. J Endourol. 1999;13(3):191–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.1999.13.191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Berguer R, Smith WD, Davis S. An ergonomic study of the optimum operating table height for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(3):416–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001-8190-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van Veelen MA, Kazemier G, Koopman J, Goossens RH, Meijer DW. Assessment of the ergonomically optimal operating surface height for laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2002;12(1):47–52. https://doi.org/10.1089/109264202753486920.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Manasnayakorn S, Cuschieri A, Hanna GB. Ergonomic assessment of optimum operating table height for hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(4):783–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0068-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. van Veelen MA, Nederlof EA, Goossens RH, Schot CJ, Jakimowicz JJ. Ergonomic problems encountered by the medical team related to products used for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(7):1077–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-9105-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, Totté ER, Pierie JP. Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1279–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0148-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Omar AM, Wade NJ, Brown SI, Cuschieri A. Assessing the benefits of “gaze-down” display location in complex tasks. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(1):105–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-8141-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Turville KL, Psihogios JP, Ulmer TR, Mirka GA. The effects of video display terminal height on the operator: a comparison of the 15 degree and 40 degree recommendations. Appl Ergon. 1998;29(4):239–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(97)00048-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Medicare physician and other practioners - by geography and service. 2019. https://data.cms.gov/provider-summary-by-type-of-service/medicare-physician-other-practitioners/medicare-physician-other-practitioners-by-geography-and-service/data. Accessed 9 Aug 2022.

  33. Spaner SJ, Warnock GL. A brief history of endoscopy, laparoscopy, and laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1997;7(6):369–73. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.1997.7.369.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Luttmann A, Sökeland J, Laurig W. Muscular strain and fatigue among urologists during transurethral resections using direct and monitor endoscopy. Eur Urol. 1998;34(1):6–13; discussion 4. https://doi.org/10.1159/000019670.

  35. Omar M, Sultan MF, El Sherif E, Abdallah MM, Monga M. Ergonomics and musculoskeletal symptoms in surgeons performing endoscopic procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Ther Adv Urol. 2020;12:1756287220904806. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287220904806.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. • Alnadhari I, Ali O, Abdeljaleel O, Sampige VRP, Shamsodini A, Salah M. Ergonomics and surgeon comfort during flexible ureteroscopy. Res Rep Urol. 2021;13:415–24. https://doi.org/10.2147/rru.S317347. Conducted a narrative review of ergonomic issues during flexible ureteroscopy and made recommendations for ergonomic surgical equipment and operating room setup.

  37. • Wright HC, Gheordunescu G, O’Laughlin K, Sun A, Fulla J, Kachroo N, et al. Ergonomics in the OR: an electromyographic evaluation of common muscle groups used during simulated flexible ureteroscopy - a pilot study. Urology. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.08.028. Compared ureteroscope type and sitting vs. standing position by utilizing surface EMG to measure muscle activation patterns in the upper trunk and extremities during simulated flexible ureteroscopy.

  38. Luttmann A, Jäger M, Sökeland J. Ergonomic assessment of the posture of surgeons performing endoscopic transurethral resections in urology. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2009;4:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-4-26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. van Veelen MA, Jakimowicz JJ, Kazemier G. Improved physical ergonomics of laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2004;13(3):161–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645700410033193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pelz DM. Low back pain, lead aprons, and the angiographer. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21(7):1364.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. • Golan R, Shah O. Performance optimization strategies for complex endourologic procedures. Urology. 2020;139:44–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.01.033. Reviewed a number of important ergonomic factors during endoscopic surgery, including operating room setup, monitor positioning, and type of ureteroscope.

  42. Fakhoury E, Provencher JA, Subramaniam R, Finlay DJ. Not all lightweight lead aprons and thyroid shields are alike. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70(1):246–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ludwig WW, Lee G, Ziemba JB, Ko JS, Matlaga BR. Evaluating the ergonomics of flexible ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2017;31(10):1062–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0378.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Talso M, Proietti S, Emiliani E, Gallioli A, Dragos L, Orosa A, et al. Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscope quality of vision: an in vitro study. J Endourol. 2018;32(6):523–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0838.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Healy KA, Pak RW, Cleary RC, Colon-Herdman A, Bagley DH. Hand problems among endourologists. J Endourol. 2011;25(12):1915–20. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Okada S, Hamamoto S, Inoue T, Minagawa S, Morikawa H, Matsuda T, et al. One- versus two-surgeon active stone retrieval procedures for flexible ureteroscopy: an off-site simulator comparative study. Int J Urol. 2021;28(6):665–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14534.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Anan G, Hattori K, Hatakeyama S, Ohyama C, Sato M. Efficacy of one-surgeon basketing technique for stone extraction during flexible ureteroscopy for urolithiasis. Arab J Urol. 2021;19(4):447–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598x.2021.1889943.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Lee MR, Lee GI. Does a robotic surgery approach offer optimal ergonomics to gynecologic surgeons?: a comprehensive ergonomics survey study in gynecologic robotic surgery. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017;28(5): e70. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Avila D, Link RE. Robotic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. In: Su L, editor. Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer Series: Prostate Cancer. W.B. Saunders; 2010. p. 121–35.

  50. Abiri A, Tao A, LaRocca M, Guan X, Askari SJ, Bisley JW, et al. Visual-perceptual mismatch in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(8):3271–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5358-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Esposito MP, Ilbeigi P, Ahmed M, Lanteri V. Use of fourth arm in da Vinci robot-assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy: novel technique. Urology. 2005;66(3):649–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.03.061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Feng T, Yohannan J, Hyams ES, Allaf ME. Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: comparison of outcomes and evaluation of learning curve. Urology. 2011;78(4):813–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.04.065.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. BIFMA-G1. Ergonomics guideline for furniture used in office work spaces designed for computer use. Business & Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association. 2013.

  54. Lux MM, Marshall M, Erturk E, Joseph JV. Ergonomic evaluation and guidelines for use of the daVinci Robot system. J Endourol. 2010;24(3):371–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Body measurements. 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm. Accessed 12 Sept 2022.

  56. Catanzarite T, Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA. Ergonomics in gynecologic surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(6):432–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/gco.0000000000000502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Guidelines for retail grocery stores. US Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 2004.

  58. Haramis G, Rosales JC, Palacios JM, Okhunov Z, Mues AC, Lee D, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of FOOT gel pads for operating room staff COMFORT during laparoscopic renal surgery. Urology. 2010;76(6):1405–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Graversen JA, Korets R, Mues AC, Katsumi HK, Badani KK, Landman J, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of gel mat foot pads in the endoscopic suite. J Endourol. 2011;25(11):1793–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Nimbarte AD, Sivak-Callcott JA, Zreiqat M, Chapman M. Neck postures and cervical spine loading among microsurgeons operating with loupes and headlamp. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. 2013;1(4):215–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21577323.2013.840342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. • Meltzer AJ, Hallbeck MS, Morrow MM, Lowndes BR, Davila VJ, Stone WM, et al. Measuring ergonomic risk in operating surgeons by using wearable technology. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(5):444–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.6384. Utilized wearable sensors to evaluate ergonomic risks of surgeon postures while they operated using loupes and headlamps.

  62. Lakhiani C, Fisher SM, Janhofer DE, Song DH. Ergonomics in microsurgery. J Surg Oncol. 2018;118(5):840–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25197.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. LumaDent ErgoPrism. https://www.lumadent.com/loupes/ep.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwsfuYBhAZEiwA5a6CDPL4qPjSxiGo-yDL5Osqze0hdlLG2ZiVsKcE3dlsjYvRuXvCRZ0UjhoCxl4QAvD_BwE. Accessed 12 Sept 2022.

  64. • Hemmati P, Nguyen TC, Dearani JA. Ergonomics for surgeons by surgeons-posture, loupes, and exercise. JAMA Surg. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0676. Reviewed the pros and cons of various loupe designs.

  65. Dairywala MI, Gupta S, Salna M, Nguyen TC. Surgeon strength: ergonomics and strength training in cardiothoracic surgery. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2021.09.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Park AE, Zahiri HR, Hallbeck MS, Augenstein V, Sutton E, Yu D, et al. Intraoperative “micro breaks” with targeted stretching enhance surgeon physical function and mental focus: a multicenter cohort study. Ann Surg. 2017;265(2):340–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001665.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rosenblatt PL, McKinney J, Adams SR. Ergonomics in the operating room: protecting the surgeon. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(6):744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. •• Koshy K, Syed H, Luckiewicz A, Alsoof D, Koshy G, Harry L. Interventions to improve ergonomics in the operating theatre: a systematic review of ergonomics training and intra-operative microbreaks. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020;55:135–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.02.008. Conducted a systematic review of recently proposed protocols for intraoperative microbreaks and reported on their effectiveness.

  69. Liang B, Qi L, Yang J, Cao Z, Zu X, Liu L, et al. Ergonomic status of laparoscopic urologic surgery: survey results from 241 urologic surgeons in China. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7): e70423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070423.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Khan R, Scaffidi MA, Satchwell J, Gimpaya N, Lee W, Genis S, et al. Impact of a simulation-based ergonomics training curriculum on work-related musculoskeletal injury risk in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(5):1070-80.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.3754.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Aaron KA, Vaughan J, Gupta R, Ali NE, Beth AH, Moore JM, et al. The risk of ergonomic injury across surgical specialties. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(2): e0244868. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244868.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Smith C, Galante JM, Pierce JL, Scherer LA. The surgical residency baby boom: changing patterns of childbearing during residency over a 30-year span. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(4):625–9. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-12-00334.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. • Rangel EL, Castillo-Angeles M, Easter SR, Atkinson RB, Gosain A, Hu YY, et al. Incidence of infertility and pregnancy complications in US female surgeons. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(10):905–15. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.3301. Surveyed nearly 700 US female surgeons and reported on rates of childbearing, as well as rates of pregancy complications and risk factors associated with pregancy complications.

  74. Lerner LB, Stolzmann KL, Gulla VD. Birth trends and pregnancy complications among women urologists. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(2):293–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. •• Francis F, Johnsunderraj SE, Divya KY, Raghavan D, Al-Furgani A, Bera LP, et al. Ergonomic stressors among pregnant healthcare workers: impact on pregnancy outcomes and recommended safety practices. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2021;21(2):e172–e181. https://doi.org/10.18295/squmj.2021.21.02.004. Conducted a narrative review of the ergonomic stressors that affect pregnant healthcare workers and provided a number of recommendations to protect maternal and fetal health.

  76. Cohen-Rosenblum AR, Varady NH, Leonovicz O, Chen AF. Repetitive musculoskeletal injuries: a survey of female adult reconstruction surgeons. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(8):1474-7.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. •• Harnsberger CR, Davids JS. The pregnant surgeon. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2019;32(6):450–6 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1693012. Conducted a narrative review of the occupational hazards to the pregnant surgeon, organized by trimester, and provided guidance on reducing caseload.

  78. Pennick V, Liddle SD. Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(8):Cd001139. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001139.pub3.

  79. MacDonald LA, Waters TR, Napolitano PG, Goddard DE, Ryan MA, Nielsen P, et al. Clinical guidelines for occupational lifting in pregnancy: evidence summary and provisional recommendations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(2):80–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.047.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. •• Kakaraparthi VN, Vishwanathan K, Gadhavi B, Reddy RS, Tedla JS, Samuel PS, et al. Application of the rapid upper limb assessment tool to assess the level of ergonomic risk among health care professionals: a systematic review. Work. 2022;71(3):551–64. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor210239. Conducted a systematic review of the use of the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) to evaluate ergonomic risk in healthcare workers.

  81. Dwyer A, Huckleby J, Kabbani M, Delano A, De Sutter M, Crawford D. Ergonomic assessment of robotic general surgeons: a pilot study. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(3):387–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00996-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Meems M, Truijens S, Spek V, Visser LH, Pop VJ. Prevalence, course and determinants of carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms during pregnancy: a prospective study. BJOG. 2015;122(8):1112–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13360.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Salazar L. Addressing the medical device safety crisis. 2021. https://www.theregreview.org/2021/10/27/salazar-addressing-medical-device-safety-crisis/. Accessed 11 Sept 2022.

  84. •• Chrouser K, Foley F, Goldenberg M, Hyder J, Kim FJ, Maranchie J, et al. Optimizing outcomes in urologic surgery: intraoperative considerations. Am Urol Assoc. 2018. Official publication of the American Urological Association that recognized the importance of operating room ergonomics in optimizing patient outcomes.

  85. Hung AJ, Chen J, Gill IS. Automated performance metrics and machine learning algorithms to measure surgeon performance and anticipate clinical outcomes in robotic surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(8):770–1. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1512.

  86. Kono E, Taniguchi K, Lee SW, Ohdaira T, Uchiyama K. Laparoscopic instrument for female surgeons: an innovative model for endoscopic purse-string suture. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022;31(4):642–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2020.1851724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Brearley S, Watson H. Towards an efficient retractor handle: an ergonomic study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1983;65(6):382–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians & Surgeons, 630 W 168th St, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Anton M. Gillespie

  2. Department of Urology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Ave, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Connie Wang & Miyad Movassaghi

Authors
  1. Anton M. Gillespie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Connie Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miyad Movassaghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miyad Movassaghi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Education

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gillespie, A.M., Wang, C. & Movassaghi, M. Ergonomic Considerations in Urologic Surgery. Curr Urol Rep 24, 143–155 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01142-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01142-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation