Objective Assessment of Ergonomics and Performance of Thoracic Surgeons During Real-Life Anatomical Robotic Pulmonary Resections.

0 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Ahmed G Elkhouly, Gowthanan Santhirakumaran, Ben Shanahan, Tim Batchelor, Henrietta Wilson, David Waller, Steven Stamenkovic, Kelvin Lau
{"title":"Objective Assessment of Ergonomics and Performance of Thoracic Surgeons During Real-Life Anatomical Robotic Pulmonary Resections.","authors":"Ahmed G Elkhouly, Gowthanan Santhirakumaran, Ben Shanahan, Tim Batchelor, Henrietta Wilson, David Waller, Steven Stamenkovic, Kelvin Lau","doi":"10.1093/icvts/ivaf180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Motion tracking tools have been used in the analysis of surgeons' technical expertise and posture in simulated endoscopic surgery. But its use in humans in real-life robotic surgery is limited. We analysed the effect of surgeons' ergonomics and posture on skill metrics for vascular dissection during anatomical pulmonary resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this observational study of vascular dissection/division during segmentectomy or lobectomy, we analysed the inter-group differences of those with more than (group 1) and less than (group 2) 100 robotic resections. The rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) scale was used to estimate ergonomic risk. Operative performance and posture for RULA were measured using the Kinovea-0.9.5 system. Path length of moving instruments, instrument speed, time for task completion, and duration of instruments out of vision were calculated to objectively assess operator performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group 1 (expert) comprised 2 males and 1 female, aged 42-61 years. Group 2 (novice) comprised 4 males, aged 31-52 years. Sixty-seven patients underwent robotic anatomical resection using the da Vinci Xi robotic platform, with 180 pulmonary vessels isolations/divisions (Group 1 = 95 vs Group 2 = 85). Group 1 had significantly better RULA ergonomic scores (4.3 vs 4.7, P < .001) which was associated with higher speed (2.8 ± 0.8 vs 2.1 ± 0.2 cm/s, P < .001), shorter task completion time (388 ± 278 vs 520 ± 322 s, P = .001), and shorter duration of instruments out of vision (P < .001). There was no difference in path length (P = .8) and no significant correlation between RULA score and different parameters that assessed surgical performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Video motion tracking software is an effective and unobtrusive method to evaluate surgical ergonomics and performance in robotic surgery. Better ergonomics were associated with increased surgical experience and improved surgical performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":73406,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12342787/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaf180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Motion tracking tools have been used in the analysis of surgeons' technical expertise and posture in simulated endoscopic surgery. But its use in humans in real-life robotic surgery is limited. We analysed the effect of surgeons' ergonomics and posture on skill metrics for vascular dissection during anatomical pulmonary resection.

Methods: In this observational study of vascular dissection/division during segmentectomy or lobectomy, we analysed the inter-group differences of those with more than (group 1) and less than (group 2) 100 robotic resections. The rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) scale was used to estimate ergonomic risk. Operative performance and posture for RULA were measured using the Kinovea-0.9.5 system. Path length of moving instruments, instrument speed, time for task completion, and duration of instruments out of vision were calculated to objectively assess operator performance.

Results: Group 1 (expert) comprised 2 males and 1 female, aged 42-61 years. Group 2 (novice) comprised 4 males, aged 31-52 years. Sixty-seven patients underwent robotic anatomical resection using the da Vinci Xi robotic platform, with 180 pulmonary vessels isolations/divisions (Group 1 = 95 vs Group 2 = 85). Group 1 had significantly better RULA ergonomic scores (4.3 vs 4.7, P < .001) which was associated with higher speed (2.8 ± 0.8 vs 2.1 ± 0.2 cm/s, P < .001), shorter task completion time (388 ± 278 vs 520 ± 322 s, P = .001), and shorter duration of instruments out of vision (P < .001). There was no difference in path length (P = .8) and no significant correlation between RULA score and different parameters that assessed surgical performance.

Conclusions: Video motion tracking software is an effective and unobtrusive method to evaluate surgical ergonomics and performance in robotic surgery. Better ergonomics were associated with increased surgical experience and improved surgical performance.

真实解剖机器人肺切除术中胸外科医生的人体工程学和表现的客观评估。
目的:运动跟踪工具已用于模拟内镜手术中外科医生的技术专长和姿势分析。但它在现实生活中的机器人手术中对人类的应用是有限的。我们分析了外科医生的人体工程学和姿势对解剖性肺切除术中血管剥离技术指标的影响。方法:在本观察性研究中,我们分析了机器人切除超过(1组)100次和少于(2组)100次的组间差异。快速上肢评估(RULA)量表用于评估人体工程学风险。使用Kinovea-0.9.5系统测量RULA的手术表现和姿势。计算移动仪器的路径长度、仪器速度、完成任务的时间、仪器脱离视线的时间,客观评价操作人员的工作表现。结果:第一组(专家组)男2名,女1名,年龄42 ~ 61岁。第二组(新手组)男性4名,年龄31-52岁。67例患者使用达芬奇Xi机器人平台进行机器人解剖切除,180例肺血管分离/分裂(组1 = 95 vs组2 = 85)。第一组的RULA人机工程学评分明显更好(4.3 vs 4.7, p)。结论:视频运动跟踪软件是评估机器人手术中手术人机工程学和性能的有效且不引人注目的方法。更好的人体工程学与手术经验的增加和手术效果的改善有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信