Advertisement

Ergonomic Evaluation of a Prototype Console for Robotic Surgeries via Simulations with Digital Human Manikins

  • Xuelong Fan
  • Ida-Märta Rhén
  • Magnus Kjellman
  • Mikael Forsman
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)

Abstract

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders impact surgical performance, which increase risks for patient safety. A new console has been designed to reduce workload for robotic surgery surgeons. Due to high costs and long waiting time of the production process, a pre-production ergonomic evaluation of the new design is preferable. In this paper, we evaluate if the new console at the pre-production stage by using an US checklist, and the Swedish standard for visual display unit work. A 3D model of the new designed console was introduced to the virtual environment of a digital manikin (Intelligently Moving Manikin, IMMA). The work-ranges of the console were calculated. Various individual work distances of 12 manikins (3 men and 3 women per each of the US and the Swedish population) were “measured”. The data were integrated and used as an objective reference to compare with the Swedish standard, and the US checklist. The result shows that the criteria in the Swedish standard and the US checklist are fulfilled, except for those are related to the adjustable range of the screen view height, the height range of the armrest and the adjustable distance of the pedals. The new console fulfills most of the criteria in the checklist and the standard, but there is room for a few improvements. The DHM tool IMMA provides the possibility for a pre-production assessment. However, the limited virtual measurement tools of IMMA restrained the time efficiency of the ergonomic assessment.

Keywords

Ergonomic evaluation Robotic surgery Digital human manikins 

References

  1. 1.
    Alleblas CCJ, de Man AM, van den Haak L, Vierhout ME, Jansen FW, Nieboer TE (2017) Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery. Ann Surg 266(6):905–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huysmans M, Hoozemans M, van der Beek A, de Looze M, van Dieën J (2010) Position sense acuity of the upper extremity and tracking performance in subjects with non-specific neck and upper extremity pain and healthy controls. J Rehabil Med 42(9):876–883Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, Cho S, Awad MM (2014) Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc 28(12):3379–3384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lawson EH, Curet MJ, Sanchez BR, Schuster R, Berguer R (2007) Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. J Robot Surg 1(1):61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yu D, Dural C, Morrow MMB, Yang L, Collins JW, Hallbeck S, Kjellman M, Forsman M, Yu D (2016) Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires. Surg Endosc 31(2):1–10Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demirel HO, Duffy VG (2007) Applications of digital human modeling in industry. In: Digital human modeling. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 824–832Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanson L, Högberg D, Carlson JS, Bohlin R, Brolin E, Delfs N, Mårdberg P, Stefan G, Keyvani A, Rhen IM (2014) Imma—intelligently moving manikins in automotive applicationsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bohlin R, Delfs N, Hanson L, Högberg D (2012) Automatic creation of virtual manikin motions maximizing comfort in manual assembly processes. In: technologies and systems for assembly quality, productivity and customization: proceedings of the 4th CIRP conference on assembly technologies and systems, pp 209–212Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delfs N, Bohlin R, Hanson L, Högberg D, Carlson J (2013) Introducing stability of forces to the automatic creation of digital human postures. 2nd International Digital Human Model, 2013Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arbetsmiljöverket (1998) Arbete vid bildskärm, AFS 1998:5Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arbetsmiljöverket (2012) Belastningsergonomi, AFS 2012:2Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    U.S. Department of Labor (2018) “Computer Workstations eTool Checklists Evaluation,” pp 3–5Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xuelong Fan
    • 1
  • Ida-Märta Rhén
    • 1
  • Magnus Kjellman
    • 2
  • Mikael Forsman
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Molecular Medicine and SurgeryKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations