Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopy vs. Robotics: Ergonomics – Does It Matter?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery

Abstract

Laparoscopy has brought many benefits to patients mainly by reducing the peri-operative morbidity. On the other hand, the distribution of the technique is handicapped by the difficulty of the procedure due to some significant limitations concerning the ergonomics of this surgical technique. Even more, it had been recognized, that laparoscopic surgery can also harm laparoscopic surgeons and this phenomenon is now under worldwide investigation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and 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

References

  1. Vereczkei A, Bupp H, Feussner H. Laparoscopic surgery and ergonomics – it’s time to think of ourselves as well. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1680–1682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hemal AK, Srinivas M, Charles AR. Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2001;15:499–503.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD. Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 1999;13:466–468.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Janetschek G, Rassweiler J. Future outlook. In: Janetschek G, Rassweiler J, Griffith D, eds. Laparoscopic Surgery in Urology. New York, NY: Thieme Stuttgart; 1996:276–280.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Deinhardt M. Manipulators and integrated OR systems – requirements and solution. Min Inv Ther Allied Technol. 2003;12:284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stone R, McCloy R. Ergonomics in medicine and surgery. BMJ. 2004;328:1115–1118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Seitz T, Balzuhat J, Bupp H. Anthropometry and measurement of posture and motion. Int J Indus Ergonom. 2000;25:447–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Koneczny S, Matern U. Instruments for the evaluation of ergonomics in surgery. Min Inv Ther Allied Technol. 2004;13:167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Veelen MA, Jakimowicz JJ, Kazemir G. Improved physical ergonomics of laparoscopic surgery. Min Inv Ther Allied Technol. 2004;13:161–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;87:408–410.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rassweiler J, Frede T, Seemann O, Stock C, Sentker L. Telesurgical laparoscopic radical prostatectomy – initial experience. Eur Urol. 2001;40:75–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rassweiler J, Binder J, Frede T. Robotic and telesurgery: will they change our future? Curr Opinion Urol. 2001;11:309–320.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hemal AK, Menon M. Robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2004;14:89–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Binder J, Bräutigam R, Jonas D, Bentas W. Robotic surgery in urology: fact or fantasy. BJU Int. 2004;94:1183–1187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dasgupta P, Jones A, Gill IS. Robotic urological surgery: a perspective. BU Int. 2005;95:20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Teber D. Li-ming su: laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy – critical analysis of the results. Eur Urol. 2006;49:612–624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mitre AI, Duarte RJ, Arap MA, et al. Ergonomic aspects related to surgeon position in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2009;23:259–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gofrit ON, Mikahalil AA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP, Steinberg GD, Shalhav AL. Surgeons’ perceptions and injuries during and after urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology. 2008;71:404–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Breedveld P, Stassen HG, Meijer DW, Stassen LPS. Theoretical background and conceptual solution for depth perception and eye–hand coordination problems in laparoscopic surgery. Min Invas Ther Allied Technol. 1999;8:227–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Matern U, Koneczny S. Safety, hazards and ergonomics in the operating room. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1965-1969.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berguer R. Ergonomics and laparoscopic surgery. Laparosc Today. 2005;4:8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reyes DAG, Tang B, Cushieri A. Minimal access surgery (MAS)-related surgeon morbidity syndromes. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Van der Schatte Olivier RH, van’t Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ. Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1365–1371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff G, van Veelen MA, Pierie JPEN. Ergonomic assessment of neck posture in the minimally invasive surgery suite during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:2421–2427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnston WK III, Hollenbeck K, Wolf JS Jr. Comparison of neuromuscular injuries to the surgeon during hand-assisted and standard laparoscopic urologic surgery. J Endourol. 2005;19:377–381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wolf JS Jr, Marcovich R, Gill IS. Survey of neuromuscular injuries to the patient and surgeon during urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology. 2000;55:831–836.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee G, Lee T, Dexter D, et al. Ergonomic risk associated with assisting in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc Surg. 2009;23:182–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Matern U, Waller P. Instruments for minimally invasive surgery. Principles of ergonomic handles. Surg Endosc. 1999;13:174–182.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Vereczkei A, Feussner H, Negele T, et al. Ergonomic assessment of the static stress confronted by surgeons during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:1118–1122.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Van Det MJ, Meijerink WJHJ, Hoff C, Totté ER, Pierie JPEN. Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1279–1285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wauben ÖSGL, van Veelen MA, Gossor D, Goossens RHM. Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1268–1274.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Matern U. Ergonomic deficiencies in the operating room: examples from minimally invasive surgery. Work. 2009;32:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Frede T, Stock C, Renner C, Budair Z, Abdel-Salam Y, Rassweiler J. Geometry of laparoscopic suturing and knotting techniques. J Endourol. 1999;13:191–198.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Frede T, Stock C, Rassweiler JJ, Alken P. Retroperitoneoscopic and laparoscopic suturing: tips and strategies for improving efficiency. J Endourol. 2000;14:905–913.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rassweiler J, Klein J, Teber D, Schulze M, Frede T. Mechanical simulators for training for laparoscopic surgery in urology. J Endourol. 2007;21:252–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schurr MO, Kunert W, Arezzo A, Buess G. The role and future of endoscopic imaging systems. Endoscopy. 1999;71:557–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pietrabissa A, Scarcello E, Carobbi A, Mosca F. Three dimensional versus two-dimensional video system for the trained endoscopic surgeon and the beginner. Endosc Surg. 1994;2:315–317.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. McDougall EM, Soble JJ, Wolf JS, Nakada SY, Elashry OM, Clayman RV. Comparison of three-dimensional and three dimensional laparoscopic video systems. J Endourol. 1996;10:371–374.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Van Veelen MA, Jakimowicz JJ, Kazemir G. Improved physical ergonomics of laparoscopic surgery. Min Invas Ther Allied Technol. 2004;13:161–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Frede T, Hammady A, Klein J, et al. The radius surgical system – a new device for complex minimally invasive procedures in urology? Eur Urol. 2007;51:1015–1022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Koneczny S, Mattern U. Instruments for the evaluation of ergonomics in surgery. Min Invas Ther Allied Technol. 2004;13:167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schurr MO, Buess GF, Wieth F, Saile H-J, Botsch M. Ergonomic surgeon’s chair for use during minimally invasive surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 1999;4:244–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Albayrak A, van Veelen MA, Prins JF, Snijders CJ, de Ridder H, Kazemir G. A newly designed ergonomic body support for surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1835–1840.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Green PE, Piantanida TA, Hill JW, Simon IB, Satava RM. Telepresence: dexterous procedures in a virtual operating field. Am Surg. 1991;57:192(abstract).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Berguer R, Smith W. An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res. 2006;134:87–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lee EC, Rafiq A, Merrell R, Ackerman R, Dennerlein JT. Ergonomics and human factors in endoscopic surgery: a comparison of manual vs telerobotic simulations systems. Surg Endosc. 2005;15:1064–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bagrodia A, Raman JD. Ergonomics considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J Endourol. 2009;23:627–633.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tse MA, Masters S, Lo CY, Patil NG. Trunk muscle training, posture fatigue, and performance in laparoscopic surgery. J Endourol. 2008;22:1053–1058.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kenngott HG, Müller-Stich BP, Reiter MA, Rassweiler J, Gutt CN. Robotic suturing: technique and benefit of advanced laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2008;17:160–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1037–1063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Baumhauer M, Feuerstein M, Meinzer H-P, Rassweiler J. Navigation in endoscopic soft tissue surgery: perspectives and limitations. J Endourol. 2008;22:751–766.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Stolzenburg JU, Truss MC, Do M, et al. Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE)—technical improvements and development of a nerve-sparing, potency-preserving approach. World J Urol. 2003;22:147–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol. 2000;163:1643–1949.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Lee DH, Choi J, Park JW, et al. An implementation of sensor-based force feedback in a compact laparoscopic surgery robot. ASAIO J. 2009;55:83–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologische Klinik, SLK Klinikens, Heilbronn, Germany

    Jens Rassweiler

  2. Department of Urology, SLK-Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Ali Serdar Gözen

  3. Department of Urology, Helios-Kliniken, Müllheim, Germany

    Thomas Frede

  4. Department of Urology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Dogu Teber

Authors
  1. Jens Rassweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Serdar Gözen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Frede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dogu Teber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Rassweiler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Sciences, Dept. Urology, All India Institute of, Ansari Nagar, New Dehli, 110029, India

    Ashok Kumar Hemal

  2. Henry Ford Health System, W. Grand Blvd. 2799, Detroit, 48202, Michigan, USA

    Mani Menon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rassweiler, J., Gözen, A.S., Frede, T., Teber, D. (2011). Laparoscopy vs. Robotics: Ergonomics – Does It Matter?. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-114-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-114-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-113-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-114-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation