Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

How Does Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Impact Pain and Burnout Among Minimally Invasive Surgeons? A Survey Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. Health, Operations Management, and Design (HCII 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13320))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1458 Accesses

Abstract

Pain is experienced by 77.8% and 53.8% of surgeons performing Traditional Laparoscopic Surgery (TLS) and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery (RALS), respectively. Contributing factors include equipment design issues and lacking ergonomic knowledge among surgeons. This study investigated the burnout and discomfort experienced by laparoscopic surgeons. A survey composed of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) was distributed via social media groups of laparoscopic surgeons between October 2020 and January 2021. Results were analyzed in Microsoft Excel and RStudio. In total, 164 responses were provided by surgeons practicing TLS, 48 of whom also practiced RALS. Intraoperative pain was experienced by 91.5% and 75% of TLS and RALS surgeons, respectively. The main sites of complaint were the neck for RALS (35.4%) and the shoulders for TLS (64.6%). Average burnout scores from the CBI were between 25.8 and 36.5 out of 100 for the three dimensions of burnout. Surgeons practicing both RALS and TLS experienced discomfort at more anatomic sites in total and greater work-related burnout than those who only practiced TLS. In this study, RALS was associated with a lower prevalence of pain than TLS for all anatomic sites, although physical complaints were alarmingly common for both modalities. On average, respondents were experiencing low levels of burnout. The neck symptoms, increased multisite discomfort, and higher work-related burnout among RALS surgeons suggest the need to investigate console design and cumulative workload experienced by RALS surgeons across modalities.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Medtech Insight, Informa Pharma Intelligence: Market Intel: Medtech Giants Ready To Battle Frontrunner Intuitive Surgical In ‘Soft Surgery Robotics.’ Informa UK Ltd. (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Freschi, C., Ferrari, V., Melfi, F., Ferrari, M., Mosca, F., Cuschieri, A.: Technical review of the da Vinci surgical telemanipulator. Int. J. Med. Robot. 9, 396–406 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Quinn, D., Moohan, J.: Optimal laparoscopic ergonomics in gynaecology. Obstetrician Gynaecologist 17, 77–82 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Van’t Hullenaar, C.D.P., Hermans, B., Broeders, I.A.M.J.: Ergonomic assessment of the da Vinci console in robot-assisted surgery. Innov. Surg. Sci. 2, 97–104 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2017-0007

  5. Hubert, N., Gilles, M., Desbrosses, K., Meyer, J.P., Felblinger, J., Hubert, J.: Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during standard and robotic assisted laparoscopic procedures. Int. J. Med. Robot. 9, 142–147 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee, G.I., Lee, M.R., Clanton, T., Sutton, E., Park, A.E., Marohn, M.R.: Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries. Surg. Endosc. 28, 456–465 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3213-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zárate Rodriguez, J.G., et al.: Ergonomic analysis of laparoscopic and robotic surgical task performance at various experience levels. Surg. Endosc. 33(6), 1938–1943 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6478-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hislop, J., Hensman, C., Isaksson, M., Tirosh, O., McCormick, J.: Self-reported prevalence of injury and discomfort experienced by surgeons performing traditional and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis demonstrating the value of RALS for surgeons. Surg. Endosc. 34(11), 4741–4753 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07810-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liang, B., et al.: Ergonomic status of laparoscopic urologic surgery: survey results from 241 urologic surgeons in China. PLoS ONE 8, e70423 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wauben, L.S.G.L., van Veelen, M.A., Gossot, D., Goossens, R.H.M.: Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg. Endosc. 20, 1268–1274 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0647-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Park, A., Lee, G., Seagull, F.J., Meenaghan, N., Dexter, D.: Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 210, 306–313 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.10.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pines, A., Aronson, E.: Career Burnout: Causes and Cures. Free Press, New York (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Melamed, S.: Burnout and risk of regional musculoskeletal pain—a prospective study of apparently healthy employed adults. Stress Health 25, 313–321 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Armon, G., Melamed, S., Shirom, A., Shapira, I.: Elevated burnout predicts the onset of musculoskeletal pain among apparently healthy employees. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 15, 399–408 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kurmann, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N.K., Seelandt, J., Candinas, D., Beldi, G.: Human factors in the operating room – the surgeon’s view. Trends Anaesth. Crit. Care. 2, 224–227 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tacc.2012.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Luu, S., et al.: Waking up the next morning: surgeons’ emotional reactions to adverse events. Med. Educ. 46, 1179–1188 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Campbell, D.A., Sonnad, S.S., Eckhauser, F.E., Campbell, K.K., Greenfield, L.J.: Burnout among American surgeons. Surgery 130, 696–705 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.2001.116676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Malach-Pines, A.: Nurses’ burnout: an existential psychodynamic perspective. J. Psychosoc. Nurs. Ment. Health Serv. 38, 23–31 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shanafelt, T.D., et al.: Burnout and career satisfaction among American surgeons. Ann. Surg. 250, 463–471 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuorinka, I., et al.: Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 18, 233–237 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(87)90010-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kristensen, T., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., Christensen, K.: The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work Stress 19, 192–207 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dolan, E.D., et al.: Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: a psychometric evaluation. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 30(5), 582–587 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3112-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. RStudio Team: RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nguyen, N.T., et al.: An ergonomic evaluation of surgeons’ axial skeletal and upper extremity movements during laparoscopic and open surgery. Am. J. Surg. 182, 720–724 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(01)00801-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Szeto, G.P.Y., Cheng, S.W.K., Poon, J.T.C., Ting, A.C.W., Tsang, R.C.C., Ho, P.: Surgeons’ static posture and movement repetitions in open and laparoscopic surgery. J. Surg. Res. 172, e19–e31 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Takayasu, K., Yoshida, K., Mishima, T., Watanabe, M., Matsuda, T., Kinoshita, H.: Analysis of the posture pattern during robotic simulator tasks using an optical motion capture system. Surg. Endosc. 32(1), 183–190 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5655-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Davis, W.T., Fletcher, S.A., Guillamondegui, O.D.: Musculoskeletal occupational injury among surgeons: effects for patients, providers, and institutions. J. Surg. Res. 189, 207–212e6 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.03.013

  28. West, C.P., Dyrbye, L.N., Erwin, P.J., Shanafelt, T.D.: Interventions to prevent and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 388, 2272–2281 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31279-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bagrodia, A., Raman, J.D.: Ergonomics considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J. Endourol. 23, 627–633 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0556

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ms. Jaime Hislop would like to acknowledge Ph.D. funding received from Mulgrave Private Hospital and Healthe Care during this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Product Design Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

    Jaime Hislop & Mats Isaksson

  2. Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Chris Hensman

  3. Department of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Chris Hensman

  4. LapSurgery Australia, Melbourne, Australia

    Chris Hensman

  5. School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

    Oren Tirosh

  6. Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

    Oren Tirosh

  7. Centre for Transformative Media Technologies, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

    John McCormick

Authors
  1. Jaime Hislop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Hensman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mats Isaksson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oren Tirosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John McCormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime Hislop .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Vincent G. Duffy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hislop, J., Hensman, C., Isaksson, M., Tirosh, O., McCormick, J. (2022). How Does Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Impact Pain and Burnout Among Minimally Invasive Surgeons? A Survey Study. In: Duffy, V.G. (eds) Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. Health, Operations Management, and Design. HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13320. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06018-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06018-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-06017-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-06018-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics