The objective of this study was to identify potential needs and barriers related to using exoskeletons to decrease musculoskeletal (MS) symptoms for workers in the operating room (OR).
Background
MS symptoms and injuries adversely impact worker health and performance in surgical environments. Half of the surgical team members (e.g., surgeons, nurses, trainees) report MS symptoms during and after surgery. Although the ergonomic risks in surgery are well recognized, little has been done to develop and sustain effective interventions.
Method
Surgical team members (n = 14) participated in focus groups, performed a 10-min simulated surgical task with a commercial upper-body exoskeleton, and then completed a usability questionnaire. Content analysis was conducted to determine relevant themes.
Results
Four themes were identified: (1) characteristics of individuals, (2) perceived benefits, (3) environmental/societal factors, and (4) intervention characteristics. Participants noted that exoskeletons would benefit workers who stand in prolonged, static postures (e.g., holding instruments for visualization) and indicated that they could foresee a long-term decrease in MS symptoms with the intervention. Specifically, raising awareness of exoskeletons for early-career workers and obtaining buy-in from team members may increase future adoption of this technology. Mean participant responses from the System Usability Scale was 81.3 out of 100 (SD = 8.1), which was in the acceptable range of usability.
Conclusion
Adoption factors were identified to implement exoskeletons in the OR, such as the indicated need for exoskeletons and usability. Exoskeletons may be beneficial in the OR, but barriers such as maintenance and safety to adoption will need to be addressed.
Application
Findings from this work identify facilitators and barriers for sustained implementation of exoskeletons by surgical teams.
AlbayrakA.van VeelenM. A.PrinsJ. F.SnijdersC. J.de RidderH.KazemierG. (2007). A newly designed ergonomic body support for surgeons. Surgical Endoscopy, 21, 1835–1840. doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9249-1
2.
AlleblasC. C.De ManA. M.Van Den HaakL.VierhoutM. E.JansenF. W.NieboerT. E. (2017). Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: A systematic review. Annals of Surgery, 266, 905–920.
3.
BangorA.KortumP.MillerJ. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4, 114–123.
4.
BerquerR.SmithW. D.DavisS. (2002). An ergonomic study of the optimum operating table height for laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 16, 416–421.
5.
BoschT.van EckJ.KnitelK.de LoozeM. (2016). The effects of a passive exoskeleton on muscle activity, discomfort and endurance time in forward bending work. Applied Ergonomics, 54, 212–217.
6.
BrookeJ. (1996). SUS—A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(194), 4–7.
7.
ChoobinehA.MovahedM.TabatabaieS. H.KumashiroM. (2010). Perceived demands and musculoskeletal disorders in operating room nurses of Shiraz city hospitals. Industrial Health, 48, 74–84.
8.
DalagerT.HøjmarkA.JensenP. T.SøgaardK.AndersenL. N. (2019). Using an intervention mapping approach to develop prevention and rehabilitation strategies for musculoskeletal pain among surgeons. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 320. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6625-4
9.
DalagerT.SøgaardK.BechK. T.MogensenO.JensenP. T. (2017). Musculoskeletal pain among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: A systematic review. Surgical Endoscopy, 31, 516–526. doi:10.1007/s00464-016-5020-9
10.
DalagerT.SøgaardK.BoyleE.JensenP. T.MogensenO. (2019). Surgery is physically demanding and associated with multisite musculoskeletal pain: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Surgical Research, 240, 30–39. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.02.048
11.
DamschroderL. J.AronD. C.KeithR. E.KirshS. R.AlexanderJ. A.LoweryJ. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), Article 50.
12.
de LoozeM. P.BoschT.KrauseF.StadlerK. S.O’SullivanL. W. (2016). Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics, 59, 671–681. doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1081988
13.
FrancisJ. J.JohnstonM.RobertsonC.GlidewellL.EntwistleV.EcclesM. P.GrimshawJ. M. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology & Health, 25, 1229–1245. doi:10.1080/08870440903194015
14.
GalleanoR.CarterF.BrownS.FrankT.CuschieriA. (2006). Can armrests improve comfort and task performance in laparoscopic surgery?Annals of Surgery, 243, 329–333. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000201481.08336.dc
15.
HallbeckM. S.LowndesB. R.BingenerJ.AbdelrahmanA. M.YuD.BartleyA.ParkA. E. (2017). The impact of intraoperative microbreaks with exercises on surgeons: A multi-center cohort study. Applied Ergonomics, 60, 334–341.
16.
HenselR.KeilM. (2019). Subjective evaluation of a passive industrial exoskeleton for lower-back support: A field study in the automotive sector. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/24725838.2018.1560376
17.
HsiehH.-F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.
JankiS.MulderE. E.IJzermansJ. N.TranT. K. (2017). Ergonomics in the operating room. Surgical Endoscopy, 31, 2457–2466.
20.
KayaO.MoranM.OzkardesA.TaskinE.SekerG.OzmenM. (2008). Ergonomic problems encountered by the surgical team during video endoscopic surgery. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, 18, 40–44. doi:10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181569ee2
21.
KimS.MooreA.SrinivasanD.AkanmuA.BarrA.Harris-AdamsonC.. . . NussbaumM. A. (2019). Potential of exoskeleton technologies to enhance safety, health, and performance in construction: Industry perspectives and future research directions. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/24725838.2018.1561557
22.
KimS.NussbaumM. A.EsfahaniM. I. M.AlemiM. M.JiaB.RashediE. (2018). Assessing the influence of a passive, upper extremity exoskeletal vest for tasks requiring arm elevation: Part II—“Unexpected” effects on shoulder motion, balance, and spine loading. Applied Ergonomics, 70, 323–330.
23.
KimS.NussbaumM. A.GabbardJ. L. (2016). Augmented reality “smart glasses” in the workplace: Industry perspectives and challenges for worker safety and health. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 4, 253–258.
24.
KrippendorffK. (1989). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
25.
LiuS.HemmingD.LuoR. B.ReynoldsJ.DelongJ. C.SandlerB. J.. . . HorganS. (2018). Solving the surgeon ergonomic crisis with surgical exosuit. Surgical Endoscopy, 32, 236–244.
26.
LoweB. D.BillotteW. G.PetersonD. R. (2019). ASTM F48 formation and standards for industrial exoskeletons and exosuits. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/24725838.2019.1579769
27.
MeijsenP.KnibbeH. J. (2007). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders of perioperative personnel in the Netherlands. AORN Journal, 86, 193–208.
NoroK.NaruseT.LuederR.Nao-iN.KozawaM. (2012). Application of Zen sitting principles to microscopic surgery seating. Applied Ergonomics, 43, 308–319. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.006
30.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.DickinsonW. B.LeechN. L.ZoranA. G. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1–21.
31.
ParkA. E.ZahiriH. R.HallbeckM. S.AugensteinV.SuttonE.YuD.. . . BingenerJ. (2017). Intraoperative “micro breaks” with targeted stretching enhance surgeon physical function and mental focus: A multicenter cohort study. Annals of Surgery, 265, 340–346.
32.
PetersJ. H.FriedG. M.SwanstromL. L.SoperN. J.SillinL. F.SchirmerB.. . . CommitteeS. F. (2004). Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery, 135, 21–27.
33.
PunnettL.WegmanD. H. (2004). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: The epidemiologic evidence and the debate. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 14, 13–23.
34.
RashediE.KimS.NussbaumM. A.AgnewM. J. (2014). Ergonomic evaluation of a wearable assistive device for overhead work. Ergonomics, 57, 1864–1874.
35.
ReyesD. A. G.TangB.CuschieriA. (2006). Minimal access surgery (MAS)-related surgeon morbidity syndromes. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 20, 1–13.
36.
SariV.NieboerT. E.VierhoutM. E.StegemanD. F.KluiversK. B. (2010). The operation room as a hostile environment for surgeons: Physical complaints during and after laparoscopy. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies, 19, 105–109.
37.
SaundersB.SimJ.KingstoneT.BakerS.WaterfieldJ.BartlamB.. . . JinksC. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893–1907.
38.
SchurrM. O.BuessG. F.WiethF.SaileH.-J.BotschM. (1999). Ergonomic surgeon’s chair for use during minimally invasive surgery. Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, 9, 244–247.
39.
SheikhzadehA.GoreC.ZuckermanJ. D.NordinM. (2009). Perioperating nurses and technicians’ perceptions of ergonomic risk factors in the surgical environment. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 833–839.
40.
Sivak-CallcottJ. A.DiazS. R.DucatmanA. M.RosenC. L.NimbarteA. D.SedgemanJ. A. (2011). A survey study of occupational pain and injury in ophthalmic plastic surgeons. Ophthalmic Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 27, 28–32.
41.
SmetsM. (2019). A field evaluation of arm-support exoskeletons for overhead work applications in automotive assembly. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/24725838.2018.1563010
42.
UpasaniS.FrancoR.NiewolnyK.SrinivasanD. (2019). The potential for exoskeletons to improve health and safety in agriculture—Perspectives from service providers. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/24725838.2019.1575930
43.
Van DetM. J.MeijerinkW.HoffC.TotteE. R.PierieJ. (2009). Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: A review and guidelines. Surgical Endoscopy, 23, 1279–1285.
44.
VereczkeiA.FeussnerH.NegeleT.FritzscheF.SeitzT.BubbH.HorváthÖ. (2004). Ergonomic assessment of the static stress confronted by surgeons during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 18, 1118–1122.
45.
WellsA. C.KjellmanM.HarperS. J. F.ForsmanM.HallbeckM. S. (2019). Operating hurts: A study of EAES surgeons. Surgical Endoscopy, 33, 933–940. doi:10.1007/s00464-018-6574-5
46.
WestgaardR. H.WinkelJ. (1997). Ergonomic intervention research for improved musculoskeletal health: A critical review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20, 463–500. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00076-5
47.
WestgaardR. H.WinkelJ. (2011). Occupational musculoskeletal and mental health: Significance of rationalization and opportunities to create sustainable production systems—A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics, 42, 261–296.
48.
WisdomJ. P.ChorK. H. B.HoagwoodK. E.HorwitzS. M. (2014). Innovation adoption: A review of theories and constructs. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 41, 480–502.
49.
YazdaniA.WellsR. (2018). Barriers for implementation of successful change to prevent musculoskeletal disorders and how to systematically address them. Applied Ergonomics, 73, 122–140. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.05.004
50.
YuD.DuralC.MorrowM. M.YangL.CollinsJ. W.HallbeckS.. . . ForsmanM. (2017). Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires. Surgical Endoscopy, 31, 877–886.
51.
YuD.LowndesB.ThielsC.BingenerJ.AbdelrahmanA.LyonsR.HallbeckS. (2016). Quantifying intraoperative workloads across the surgical team roles: Room for better balance?World Journal of Surgery, 40, 1565–1574. doi:10.1007/s00268-016-3449-6
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
