Prevalence,Risk Factors,and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

French

Background: Poor ergonomics may lead to musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries in surgeons, prompting practice modification, early retirement, and errors. We hypothesized that each plastic surgery subspecialty faces unique ergonomic challenges. We sought to identify the prevalence, risk factors, and impact of MSK injuries among plastic surgeons by subspecialty. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD420251026702), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to November 9, 2024, for studies reporting on injury prevalence among plastic surgeons. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. The primary outcome was the literature-pooled MSK injury prevalence. Secondarily, we reviewed ergonomic risk factors and impacts. Pairwise and nonpairwise meta-analyses and random effects meta-analyses were conducted for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: Fifteen studies were included, encompassing 3313 plastic surgeons. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that 72.0% reported MSK injury (95% CI [63.4, 79.3]), with the greatest prevalence in aesthetic surgeons (84.3%; 95% CI [76.0, 90.1]) and lowest among craniofacial surgeons (69.4%; 95% CI [52.8, 82.1]). Symptoms mostly occurred in the neck (47.0%), lower back (37.0%), and upper back (32.0%). Consequently, 38.6% worried about disability, 10.1% took time off, and 5.9% decreased their caseload. Practice duration, caseload, and age were risk factors. Conclusion: Ergonomic-related injuries varied among subspecialties, affecting the neck (craniofacial, oculoplastic, and microsurgeons), forearm/wrist/hands (hand surgeons), and lower back (aesthetic surgeons). Tailored ergonomic education programs are needed to protect the health and well-being of plastic surgeons.

Keywords

Ergonomics musculoskeletal injuries occupational injuries prevalence surgeons surgery plastic

Introduction

Ergonomics is the scientific discipline that analyzes human interactions with systems and integrates principles to optimize well-being and system performance.¹ The operating room is a fast-paced, demanding environment where surgeons must sustain non-neutral body positions, utilize heavy equipment, maintain prolonged focus, and make decisions under pressure.² Poor ergonomics, including awkward postures, have been associated with musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries in surgeons that prompt absenteeism, clinical practice modification, shortened careers, and burnout.³ In turn, this burnout may increase the risk of medical errors and worsen the quality of patient care.^2,4,5

Plastic surgery is a diverse surgical specialty encompassing procedures operating across the entire body.⁶ Operating on certain anatomic sites may require surgeons to maintain uncomfortable postures while performing repetitive, strenuous movements.⁷ Prevalence measures the number of cases of a condition in a specified population at a specified time.⁸ In 2018, the first major study investigating MSK symptoms in plastic surgeons reported that 78.3% have experienced a work-related injury.⁹ However, no systematic review has been conducted that identifies the MSK disorders faced by each plastic surgery subspecialty (breast, hand, lower limb, craniofacial, pediatric, microsurgery, and aesthetic), revealing a gap in understanding variation in injury patterns across the field.⁶

Given the breadth of plastic surgery subspecialties and the effects of poor ergonomics, defining subspecialty-specific challenges is imperative to develop informed preventative solutions. Thus, this systematic review aims (1) to define the prevalence and impact of work-related MSK disorders among plastic surgeons by subspecialty, (2) to identify injury risk factors, and (3) to propose ergonomic recommendations.

Materials and Methods

The requirement for institutional review board approval was waived as this work relied entirely on published primary research. The results will neither disseminate nor generate surgeon-identifiable information. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)¹⁰ and the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guidelines.¹¹ This work abided by the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251026702).

Search and Study Selection

A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception until November 9, 2024, without language restrictions. Database search strategies were designed with input from an expert medical librarian (see Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content 1). Citations were reviewed to identify studies missed in the search.

Studies were included if they (1) reported primary ergonomic data on plastic surgeons; (2) were published in a peer-reviewed journal; (3) reported at least 1 prevalence estimate for a work-related MSK injury; (4) reported prevalence estimates for a common interval. Studies were excluded if they (1) were published as an abstract; (2) reported on non-MSK injuries; (3) reported on injuries in patients or nonplastic surgeons; (4) did not report injury/symptoms in plastic surgeons as a primary outcome.

Paired and independent reviewers (AM and BO) performed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. Discrepancies were resolved via discussion.

Data Extraction and Methodological Quality Assessment

Data were extracted on study characteristics (location, design, sample size, and response rate), surgeon demographics (mean age, gender, training level, subspecialty, mean caseload, and mean years practicing), and injury-related characteristics (injury site, symptom, prevalence, days of work lost, necessary work adaptations, number of physicians requiring leave/early retirement, and risk factors). Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Prevalence Studies.¹² Studies that satisfied <50%, 50% to 69%, and 70% or more of the JBI Checklist were considered to be low-, moderate-, and high-quality studies, respectively.^13–17 Evidence certainty of study outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE tool.¹⁸

The prevalence of work-related MSK disorders of the neck, lower back, upper back, shoulder, and forearm/wrist/hands was recorded. These sites were selected a priori because they are the most commonly investigated and affected areas across surgical subspecialties.^19–22 When specifying the prevalence of forearm/wrist/hand symptoms, data that reported on injuries in broader locations such as “arms” were excluded because symptoms in this site could extend proximally beyond the forearm. If a study reported the prevalence of specific conditions, these estimates were extracted under their corresponding anatomic location. If a study explored multiple conditions affecting the same site, the highest prevalence among injuries affecting the same area was recorded.

Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis

The primary measure was the overall literature-pooled prevalence (proportion; with a 95% confidence interval [95% CI]) of MSK injury among plastic surgeons, and additionally, the prevalence of MSK injury stratified by subspecialty.

The secondary measures were predictors for symptom development and impact on surgical performance. Female gender was hypothesized a priori to be a significant ergonomic risk factor due to smaller hand size, physiologic grip strength, and instrument designs more suited to male hands.²³ Therefore, gender was a candidate for meta-analysis. Similarly, injury impacts were hypothesized a priori to be significant, including worrying about future surgical ability, needing time off, and reducing case volume.

For continuous outcomes, we conducted a nonpairwise meta-analysis of prevalence proportions with 95% CI. The synthesis proceeded with a random effects meta-analysis utilizing a generalized linear mixed model, binomial distribution, pseudo-logit transformation for variance standardization, and maximum likelihood estimation.²⁴ For dichotomous outcomes, we conducted a pairwise meta-analysis to determine a literature-pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. A random effects meta-analysis of proportions was conducted using the Mantel–Haenszel method and maximum likelihood estimator to compare groups with versus without a given risk factor or impact.

Statistical heterogeneity was measured using the I² value, which was interpreted according to Cochrane-endorsed thresholds: (i) might not be important (0%–40%); (ii) moderate (30%–60%); substantial (50%–90%); and considerable (75%–100%) heterogeneity.²⁵ Publication bias was evaluated qualitatively using funnel plots, and where applicable, quantitatively using Egger regression. Subgroup analysis omitted studies of low methodological quality. Analyses and figure syntheses were conducted in R (version 4.3.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

The search yielded 270 unique studies (Figure 1). Citation screening identified 10 additional studies. Ultimately, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2010 and 2024, and included microsurgery, craniofacial, aesthetic, hand, oculoplastic, and unspecified subspecialties (see Table, Supplemental Digital Content 2).

Figure 1.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

Methodological Quality

All included studies were observational in design with moderate methodological quality that predisposed them to very low GRADE certainty evidence (see Table, Supplemental Digital Content 3). Key factors reducing quality were low method validity (13 studies) and sample sizes (10 studies). Most data relied on self-reporting via surveys. Studies clearly described study subjects and settings (15 studies), selected appropriate sample frames (13 studies), and analyzed data with sufficient sample coverage (12 studies).

Meta-Analysis of MSK Injury Prevalence

Overall Injury Prevalence

Across 15 studies, there were 3313 surveyed surgeons, of whom 2274 reported MSK injury (1 affected per 1.5 surgeons). The pooled prevalence of MSK injury among plastic surgeons was 72.0% (95% CI [63.4, 79.3], I² = 95%) (Figure 2). There was no significant heterogeneity between subgroups stratified by methodological quality, and statistical heterogeneity did not appreciably improve with subgroup analysis. There was no significant publication bias (p = 0.40) (Figure 3).

Figure 2.

Forest plot for the synthesis of the prevalence of musculoskeletal injury among plastic surgeons.

Figure 3.

A funnel plot of overall injury prevalence.

Injury Prevalence by Plastic Surgery Subspecialty

Subspecialties reported by at least 2 studies (and therefore were eligible for meta-analysis) included microsurgery (n = 3 studies; 513 surgeons), craniofacial surgery (n = 3 studies; 408 surgeons), aesthetic surgery (n = 2 studies; 562 surgeons), and hand surgery (n = 5 studies; 965 surgeons) (Table 1). Injury prevalence was highest among aesthetic surgeons (84.3%; 95% CI [76.0, 90.1], I² = 81) and lowest among craniofacial surgeons (69.4%; 95% CI [52.8, 82.1], I² = 91%) (see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 4). In the random effects analysis, subgroups with high methodological quality were significantly associated with higher prevalence estimates for craniofacial surgeons and lower prevalence estimates for aesthetic surgeons. For hand surgeons, moderate quality subgroups exhibited the lowest prevalence, whereas high quality subgroups depicted higher prevalence estimates. Subgroup analysis among high-quality studies resulted in reduced statistical heterogeneity. The smaller number of eligible studies precluded the statistical evaluation of publication bias for subspecialty- and impact-specific analyses (see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 5).

Table 1.

A Table That Summarizes MSK Injury Prevalence by Subspecialty, Injury Site, and Impact on Function.

	Number of Studies	Number of Surgeons	Pooled Prevalence (%)	95% CI	I² (%)	Impact of Groups Stratified By Methodological Quality on Heterogeneity	Evidence of Publication Bias
Subspecialty
Microsurgery	3	513	77.18	68.77, 83.86	85	None	Not evident (too few studies for Egger regression)
Craniofacial	3	408	69.4	52.8, 82.1	91	Higher quality associated with higher prevalence
Aesthetic	2	562	84.3	76.0, 90.1	81	Higher quality associated with lower prevalence
Hand	5	965	71.9	63.2, 79.2	85	Moderate quality associated with the lowest prevalence, while high quality depicted higher prevalence and reduced I² (47%)
Injury site
Neck	14	3266	47.0	39.6, 54.5	96	None	Not evident (p = 0.64)
Lower back	10	2674	37.0	29.3, 45.4	90	I² reduced to 0% in moderate quality subgroup	Not evident (p = 0.95)
Upper back	6	1566	32.0	26.2, 38.5	78	I² reduced the most to 54% in moderate quality subgroup	Not evident (too few studies for Egger Regression). Forest plot visualization did not suggest gross publication bias.
Shoulder	10	2698	31.6	25.4, 38.5	95	I² reduced the most to 84% and 83% in moderate and low quality subgroups, respectively	Not evident (p = 0.09)
Upper extremity	5	2027	30.1	20.3, 42.1	97	None	Not evident (too few studies for Egger regression)
Impact
Worrying about disability	5	637	38.6	26.9, 51.9	92	I² reduced to 0% in the low-quality subgroup	Not evident (too few studies for Egger regression)
Taking time off	9	2620	10.1	6.1, 16.2	92	None
Decreased case volume	7	1833	5.9	3.7, 9.3	67	I² reduced to 0% in the low-quality subgroup

Abbreviations: MSK, musculoskeletal; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.

Prevalence by MSK Injury Site

The neck was the most reported injury site with a pooled prevalence of 47.0% (95% CI [39.6, 54.5], I² = 96%), followed by the lower back (37.0%; 95% CI [29.3, 45.4], I² = 90%), upper back (32.0% (95% CI [26.2, 38.5], I² = 78%), shoulder (31.6% (95% CI [25.4, 38.5], I² = 95%) and forearm/wrist/hands (30.1%; 95% CI [20.3, 42.1], I² = 97%) (see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 6). The random effects analysis showed no significant heterogeneity between subgroups stratified by methodological quality. Heterogeneity was consistently high, although notably reduced in certain subgroups during quality-stratified analysis, including lower back and upper back injuries. Egger regression did not demonstrate publication bias for neck (p = 0.64), lower back (p = 0.95), or shoulder (p = 0.09) injuries (see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 7). The smaller number of eligible studies precluded the statistical evaluation of publication bias for upper back and forearm/wrist/hand injuries.

Impact Prevalence

Worrying about future disability was the most reported injury impact with a pooled prevalence of 38.6% (95% CI [26.9, 51.9], I² = 92%), followed by taking time off (10.1%; 95% CI [6.1, 16.2], I² = 92%), and decreasing case volume (5.9%; 95% CI [3.7, 9.3], I² = 67%) (see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 8). The random effects analysis showed no significant heterogeneity between quality-stratified subgroups. Paradoxically, statistical heterogeneity decreased to 0% within the low-quality subgroup for worrying about future disability and decreasing case volume. Some degree of publication bias was suggested among most studies used to assess the impacts of worrying about future disability and taking time off (see Figure, Supplemental Digital Content 9).

Meta-Analysis of Gender as an Ergonomic Risk Factor

Five studies compared the gender-based injury distribution among plastic surgeons, encompassing 1474 males (1 affected per 1.5 surgeons) and 404 females (1 affected per 1.3 surgeons). The odds of injury did not significantly differ between females and males in the random effects analysis (OR: 1.3, 95% CI [0.9, 1.7], I² = 33%). Yet, in the fixed effects model, females had significantly higher odds of injury (OR: 1.3, 95% CI [1.0, 1.7], I² = 33%) (Figure 4). These findings may reflect the small sample size included in this analysis. There was no significant difference in effect size between quality-stratified subgroups. Paradoxically, statistical heterogeneity increased among high-quality studies. No significant publication bias was noted (p = 0.09) (Figure 5).

Figure 4.

Forest plot on the association of surgeon gender with concomitant musculoskeletal injury among plastic surgeons.

Figure 5.

A funnel plot for musculoskeletal injury by surgeon gender.

Qualitative Analysis of Injuries

All included studies found that the most reported MSK symptom was pain/strain. Following pain/strain, stiffness and fatigue were common.^9,^26–28 Figure 6 displays injury prevalence by subspecialty and site.

Figure 6.

Bar chart of the prevalence of musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms among body sites by subspecialty.

Qualitative Analysis of Ergonomic Risk Factors

The 3 most common significant ergonomic risk factors were years in practice (4 studies), caseload (4 studies), and age (3 studies). Alqahtani et al²⁹ reported that the number of work-related injuries in hand surgeons increased with years of practice. Craniofacial surgeons in practice for over 15 years had double the odds of having MSK symptoms.²⁸ Alzayadneh et al³⁰ noted a significant relationship between pain intensity and years of rhinoplasty practice. Plastic surgeons with over 20 years in practice had 3.39 times the odds of developing carpal tunnel syndrome.³¹ Two studies found that years in practice were not a significant risk factor.

Regarding case volume, Alqahtani et al²⁹ reported a significant association between increased work-related injuries and higher caseload among hand surgeons. Weekly caseload was significantly associated with greater pain intensity and disability index in aesthetic surgeons.³⁰ Craniofacial surgeons who operated 3 or more days per week experienced significantly more lower back pain.³² Interestingly, an annual caseload under 100 was a significant protective factor against MSK symptoms.⁹ Two studies did not identify case volume as a significant risk factor.^26,28

Concerning age, Khansa et al⁹ found an increased MSK symptom prevalence in 45- to 54-year-old plastic surgeons. Older hand surgeons experienced significantly more work-related injuries.²⁹ Older plastic surgeons had a significantly higher incidence of cervical injuries.³³ Six studies did not report any significant injury differences by age.^26,30,^32–35

All investigated risk factors were summarized (see Table, Supplemental Digital Content 10).

Discussion

Our study found that (1) 72.0% of plastic surgeons have experienced a work-related MSK injury, with the highest prevalence in aesthetic surgeons, followed by microsurgeons, hand- and craniofacial surgeons; (2) the most common risk factors were years in practice, caseload, and age, while female gender was nonsignificant; and (3) the most reported impact was worrying about future disability.

These results illuminate how the effects of work-related injury extend beyond physical health to mental well-being and career longevity. Intense, repetitive physical demands predispose surgeons to injury and are reflected in this study, as 38.6% of plastic surgeons worried about future disability due to injury. Given the established impacts of MSK symptoms, it is unsurprising that surgeons have concerns regarding their future operative ability. Ruitenburg et al³⁶ found that 1 in 7 surgeons experienced challenges coping with physical operative demands due to reductions in their physical well-being. Scarcella et al³⁷ found that 53.7% of injured craniofacial surgeons experienced sleep difficulties due to symptoms. While Yakkanti et al³⁸ noted that 20 of 60 orthopedic surgeons required early retirement due to injury, our search only found 1 study reporting on early retirement, which occurred in 2% of plastic surgeons.³⁴ Future research is needed to fully characterize how injuries affect career longevity, given the paucity of literature on this topic.

Moreover, work-related MSK injuries can affect the volume and quality of patient care. Precisely, 10.1% and 5.9% of plastic surgeons reported taking time off and decreasing their caseload, respectively, due to injury. These findings are consistent with studies of other surgical specialties, where 0% of general,³⁹ 8% of vascular,⁴⁰ and 12% of orthopedic surgeons³⁸ with work-related injuries took time off due to symptoms. Furthermore, MSK injuries likely impact the quality of care. Szeto et al⁴¹ found that over 50% of injured general surgeons reported impaired operative performance. The working culture in surgical departments may pressure surgeons to sustain operative volume without taking time off for injury to avoid negative perception by colleagues. This perceptual fear has been reported as a significant ergonomic barrier.⁴²

Unsurprisingly, the most reported risk factors were years in practice, caseload, and age. With increasing years in practice and caseloads, surgeons are exposed to cumulative operative demands, increasing the likelihood of injury. Aging impacts surgeons’ endurance and ability to meet these physical demands. Resultantly, multi-faceted approaches are essential to reduce injuries, including optimizing caseload management and practicing core, neck, thoracic spine, and shoulder/internal rotation exercises.^{9,28,31,43,44} Nevertheless, these risk factors were not identified as significant in multiple studies, potentially due to studies that did not aim to identify risk factors, inconsistency in evidence, and variable study designs. Future research is needed to clarify the role of these factors in MSK injury development.

When analyzed by subspecialty, microsurgeons, craniofacial, and oculoplastic surgeons experienced injuries most often in the neck, followed by the lower back and shoulder (Figure 6). This finding is consistent with prevalent injury locations reported across surgical specialties.⁴⁵ Hand surgeons were mostly affected in their forearms/wrists/hands. Further investigation can identify subspecialty-specific causes of injury.

To address and prevent MSK issues, regular exercise and stretching were recommended for all subspecialties.^{9,26,28,30,31,44,46} Ergonomic education during surgical training was recommended for craniofacial³² and hand surgeons.^27,46 Awareness of ergonomic interventions is a key protective factor against injury.^42,^47–49 Thus, ergonomic education is a valuable tool to enhance knowledge and protect the health of plastic surgeons altogether. In total, 52% of plastic surgery residents developed MSK symptoms during the first 2 years of residency, and only 22% reported having ergonomics training.⁵⁰ Fanning et al⁵¹ described how current resident well-being resources are insufficient to treat injuries, underscoring the need for resource development targeting resident physical health. Our findings can inform the development of tailored subspecialty-specific ergonomics training for residents.^27,34 Novel technology development also presents an opportunity for ergonomic improvement. A study found that the use of a posture training device led to plastic surgeons spending a greater proportion of operating time in the neutral/upright posture.⁵²

Our systematic search did not identify studies representing all subspecialties; breast, pediatric, and burn surgeons may also encounter ergonomic barriers, injuries, and their sequelae. Studies have reported that nipple-sparing mastectomy is associated with increased physical demand and prolonged awkward positioning, promoting shoulder and trunk injuries.^53,54 Future studies are needed to identify MSK injuries related to additional breast procedures and the breast subspecialty entirely. Furthermore, Gabrielson and Wei⁵⁵ found that pediatric otolaryngologists may be predisposed to higher pain rates compared to adult otolaryngologists due to smaller surgical fields and instruments.⁵⁵ This association would likely hold true in a study of pediatric versus adult plastic surgeons. No studies have investigated the ergonomics of burn surgeons. We hypothesize that the strength and endurance required for reconstructive burn procedures increase one's ergonomic risk. Further research can characterize the injury prevalence and risk factors among breast, pediatric, and burn surgeons to inform targeted ergonomic interventions.

Given the very low certainty evidence used in this review, we recommend that future research implement prospective and case-control designs to strengthen the evidence certainty. Randomized controlled trials would be ethically inappropriate given the injury risk inherent to this investigation. This study is subject to misclassification bias due to reliance on self-report surveys. Injury prevalence may be overestimated due to responder bias.³¹ Selection bias is present due to convenience sampling. In-person surveys may have introduced social desirability bias. Injured physicians may have been unable to attend these events, potentially leading to an underestimation of the most impactful injuries.³¹ High heterogeneity warrants caution in interpreting our subspecialty-specific findings. Participants may have had a baseline level of pain/strain that was not identified in our study; we cannot definitively attribute observed MSK symptoms solely to work-related causes. We included studies that investigated any pain/strain, rather than exclusively long-term pain symptoms leading to lifestyle limitations. Our search did not identify studies investigating injuries in breast, pediatric, and burn surgeons.

Conclusion

Overall, very low certainty evidence supports that 72% of plastic surgeons have experienced a work-related MSK injury, with aesthetic surgeons reporting the highest prevalence. The neck, lower back, and upper back were most often affected. Our findings underscore the necessity of tailored ergonomic solutions to improve the health and well-being of plastic surgeons while potentially preserving career longevity. Future research should focus on (1) identifying burn, pediatric, and breast-specific needs; and (2) developing subspecialty-specific intraoperative interventions and/or workload/physical conditioning solutions.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 - Supplemental material for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Alexis E. Mah, Beverley Osei, Brendan K. Tao, Brandon Chai, Katherine Zhu, Madeleine Wong, Orlin Chowdhury, Jeffrey Chen and Achilles Thoma in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 - Supplemental material for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Alexis E. Mah, Beverley Osei, Brendan K. Tao, Brandon Chai, Katherine Zhu, Madeleine Wong, Orlin Chowdhury, Jeffrey Chen and Achilles Thoma in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 - Supplemental material for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Alexis E. Mah, Beverley Osei, Brendan K. Tao, Brandon Chai, Katherine Zhu, Madeleine Wong, Orlin Chowdhury, Jeffrey Chen and Achilles Thoma in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 - Supplemental material for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Alexis E. Mah, Beverley Osei, Brendan K. Tao, Brandon Chai, Katherine Zhu, Madeleine Wong, Orlin Chowdhury, Jeffrey Chen and Achilles Thoma in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-5-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 - Supplemental material for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-5-psg-10.1177_22925503251392594 for Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impacts of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Plastic Surgeons: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Alexis E. Mah, Beverley Osei, Brendan K. Tao, Brandon Chai, Katherine Zhu, Madeleine Wong, Orlin Chowdhury, Jeffrey Chen and Achilles Thoma in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Alexis E. Mah: Concept and design development, data acquisition and interpretation, and manuscript writing. Beverley Osei: Concept and design development, data acquisition, and manuscript writing. Brendan K. Tao: Statistical analysis, data interpretation, and manuscript writing. Brandon Chai: Data interpretation and manuscript writing. Katherine Zhu, Madeleine Wong, and Orlin Chowdhury: Data acquisition, interpretation, and manuscript writing. Jeffrey Chen: Data analysis and manuscript writing. Achilles Thoma: Concept and design development, critical manuscript revision, and manuscript writing.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Data Availability

Datasets generated and/or analyzed during this review are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Considerations

The requirement for institutional review board approval was waived as this work relied entirely on published primary research. The results will neither disseminate nor generate surgeon-identifiable information. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects. Study Registration Number: CRD420251026702.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Alexis E. Mah

Brendan K. Tao

Brandon Chai

Jeffrey Chen

Achilles Thoma

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ghosh

Bagchi

Sen

Bandyopadhyay

. Ergonomics: A bridge between fundamentals and applied research. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2011;15(1):14-17. doi:10.4103/0019-5278.83000

Al-Ghunaim

Johnson

Biyani

O’Connor

. Burnout in surgeons: A qualitative investigation into contributors and potential solutions. Int J Surg. 2022;101:106613. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106613

Hallbeck

Paquet

. Human factors and ergonomics in the operating room: Contributions that advance surgical practice: Preface. Appl Ergon. 2019;78:248-250. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.04.007

Khansa

Janis

. A growing epidemic: Plastic surgeons and burnout-A literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(2):298e-305e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005875

Carrau

Janis

. Physician burnout: Solutions for individuals and organizations. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9(2):e3418. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000003418

Voineskos

. Plastic surgical randomized controlled trials: A systematic review.

Schlussel

Maykel

. Ergonomics and musculoskeletal health of the surgeon. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2019;32(06):424-434. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1693026

Last

. A dictionary of epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15(2):277-277. doi:10.1093/ije/15.2.277

Khansa

Westvik

Ahmad

Lista

Janis

. Work-Related musculoskeletal injuries in plastic surgeons in the United States, Canada, and Norway. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(1):165e-175e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003961

10.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J. 2021;372:71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71

11.

Brooke

Schwartz

Pawlik

. MOOSE Reporting guidelines for meta-analyses of observational studies. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(8):787. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0522

12.

Munn

Moola

Lisy

Riitano

Tufanaru

. Chapter 5: Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. In: Aromataris

Munn

, eds. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2020. doi:10.46658/JBIMES-20-06.

13.

Franco

Vidigal

MTC

Oliveira

MND

Nascimento

CTDJS

Silva

RFD

Paranhos

. Evidence-based mapping of third molar techniques for age estimation applied to Brazilian adolescents – a systematic review. Res Soc Dev. 2020;9(10):e9339109395. doi:10.33448/rsd-v9i10.9395

14.

Vozzo

Azevedo

Fernandes

JCH

, et al. The success and complications of complete-arch implant-supported fixed monolithic zirconia restorations: A systematic review. Prosthesis. 2023;5(2):425-436. doi:10.3390/prosthesis5020029

15.

Mahmud

Hossain

MdF

Muyeed

, et al. Risk assessment and clinical implications of COVID-19 in multiple myeloma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(9):e0308463. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308463

16.

Hafizin

Farhana

Soe

. IDF23-0085 The effects of intermittent fasting on cardiovascular health of prediabetes and T2DM patients: A systematic review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2024;209:111202. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2024.111202

17.

Abualhija

Gómez García-Donas

Shepherd

McGregor

Franco

Manica

. Biological profiling using the human mandible. J Oral Biosci. 2024;66(1):5-12. doi:10.1016/j.job.2023.11.006

18.

Guyatt

Oxman

Sultan

, et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):151-157. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.006

19.

Mathey-Andrews

Venkateswaran

McCarthy

, et al. A national survey of occupational musculoskeletal injuries in cardiothoracic surgeons. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024;168(2):617-625.e3. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.08.038

20.

Rață

Barac

Garleanu

Onofrei

. Work-related musculoskeletal complaints in surgeons. Healthcare. 2021;9(11):1482. doi:10.3390/healthcare9111482

21.

Knudsen

Ludewig

Braman

. Musculoskeletal pain in resident orthopaedic surgeons: Results of a novel survey. Iowa Orthop J. 2014;34:190-196.

22.

Alzahrani

Alqahtani

Pichora

Bicknell

. Work-related musculoskeletal injuries among upper extremity surgeons: A web-based survey. World J Orthop. 2021;12(11):891-898. doi:10.5312/wjo.v12.i11.891

23.

Basager

Williams

Hanneke

Sanaka

Weinreich

. Musculoskeletal disorders and discomfort for female surgeons or surgeons with small hand size when using hand-held surgical instruments: A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2024;13(1):57. doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02462-y

24.

Tao

Huang

Mihalache

, et al. Endophthalmitis after bilateral same-day versus unilateral intravitreal injection. Ophthalmol Retina. 2025;9(5):493-495. doi:10.1016/j.oret.2024.12.005

25.

Higgins

Thomas

Chandler

, et al., eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.5. Cochrane; 2024. https:// www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

26.

Zhao

Rothchild

Wang

, et al. Prevalence, prevention, and treatment of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among microsurgeons. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2023;39(5):374-382. doi:10.1055/s-0042-1757630

27.

Tarabishy

Brown

Hudson

Herrera

. Fixing hands, breaking backs: The ergonomics and physical detriment of the hand surgeon. Hand (NY). 2024;19(3):509-515. doi:10.1177/15589447221126765

28.

Shah

Wang

Kest

, et al. Ergonomics among craniofacial surgeons: A survey of work-related musculoskeletal discomfort and injury. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(7):2411-2415. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000007933

29.

Alqahtani

Alzahrani

Bicknell

Pichora

. Prevalence and factors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among hand surgeons. World J Orthop. 2022;13(5):465-471. doi:10.5312/wjo.v13.i5.465

30.

Alzayadneh

Hamdan

Alzayadneh

, et al. The unseen strain: Investigating the awareness of rhinoplasty surgeons regarding their spine health. Aesthetic Surg J. 2024;44(6):588-596. doi:10.1093/asj/sjae007

31.

Capone

Parikh

Gatti

Davidson

Davison

. Occupational injury in plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(5):1555-1561. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181d62a94

32.

Howarth

Hallbeck

Lemaine

Singh

Noland

. Work-related musculoskeletal discomfort and injury in craniofacial and maxillofacial surgeons. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(7):1982-1985. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005631

33.

Godwin

Macdonald

Kaur

Zhelin

Baber

. The impact of cervical musculoskeletal disorders on UK consultant plastic surgeons: Can we reduce morbidity with applied ergonomics? Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(6):602-610. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000001073

34.

Tobias

Dodd

Wong

. A survey of occupational musculoskeletal symptoms among Canadian plastic surgeons and trainees. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2024;32(4):722-727. doi:10.1177/22925503231169778

35.

Howarth

Hallbeck

Mahabir

Lemaine

Evans

Noland

. Work-Related musculoskeletal discomfort and injury in microsurgeons. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2019;35(05):322-328. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1675177

36.

Ruitenburg

Frings-Dresen

MHW

Sluiter

. Physical job demands and related health complaints among surgeons. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2013;86(3):271-279. doi:10.1007/s00420-012-0763-7

37.

Scarcella

Keane

Hoque

Feczko

Janis

. Understanding the impact of ergonomic practices on musculoskeletal-related symptoms and emotional wellness in craniofacial surgeons. J Craniofac Surg. 2025;36(2):469-472. doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000010897

38.

Yakkanti

Sedani

Syros

Aiyer

D’Apuzzo

Hernandez

. Prevalence and spectrum of occupational injury among orthopaedic surgeons: A cross-sectional study. JBJS Open Access. 2023;8(1):e22.00083. doi:10.2106/JBJS.OA.22.00083

39.

Chambers

Gill

. Work related musculoskeletal pain in general surgical trainees: Extent of the problem and strategies for injury prevention. Bulletin. 2020;102(S1):e9-e14. doi:10.1308/rcsbull.TB2020.16

40.

Sarwal

Tobias

Taylor

Misskey

Hsiang

. Survey of Canadian vascular surgeons and trainees finds work-related musculoskeletal pain and discomfort is common. J Vasc Surg. 2022;75(4):1431-1436. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2021.09.048

41.

Szeto

GPY

Ting

ACW

Poon

JTC

Cheng

SWK

Tsang

RCC

. Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms in surgeons. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(2):175-184. doi:10.1007/s10926-009-9176-1

42.

Mah

Alam

Larouche

, et al. Interdisciplinary operating room ergonomics needs and priorities: A survey of operating room staff. Ann Surg. 2024. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000006582

43.

Winters

Sommer

Romanelli

Marschik

Hulcher

Cutler

. Stretching and strength training to improve postural ergonomics and endurance in the operating room. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(5):e2810. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000002810

44.

Sivak-Callcott

Diaz

Ducatman

Rosen

Nimbarte

Sedgeman

. A survey study of occupational pain and injury in ophthalmic plastic surgeons. Ophthalm Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;27(1):28-32. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181e99cc8

45.

Epstein

Sparer

Tran

, et al. Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons and interventionalists: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(2):e174947. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4947

46.

Wilkinson

O’Connor

Van Den Hurk

, et al. Cervical spine positioning patterns among hand surgeons: A critical analysis of surgical posture. J Hand Microsurg. 2024;16(5):100121. doi:10.1016/j.jham.2024.100121

47.

Park

Lee

Seagull

Meenaghan

Dexter

. Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: An impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(3):306-313. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.10.017

48.

Wauben

LSGL

van Veelen

Gossot

Goossens

RHM

. Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: A questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2006;20(8):1268-1274. doi:10.1007/s00464-005-0647-y

49.

Xiao

Jakimowicz

Albayrak

Goossens

RHM

. Ergonomic factors on task performance in laparoscopic surgery training. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(3):548-553. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2011.08.010

50.

Kokosis

Dellon

Lidsky

Hollenbeck

Lee

Coon

. Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and ergonomics among plastic surgery residents: Results of a national survey and analysis of contributing factors. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;85(3):310-315. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002147

51.

Fanning

Patel

Janis

. The current state of plastic surgery residency wellness programs: Benefits and barriers. Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open. 2024;12(2):e5567. doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000005567

52.

Segal

Zaldana-Flynn

Dean

Gosman

Reid

. Reduction of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in plastic surgeons by introduction of a posture training device. Ann Plast Surg. 2022;88(4):S379-S384. doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000003136

53.

Hallbeck

Law

Lowndes

, et al. Workload differentiates breast surgical procedures: NSM associated with higher workload demand than SSM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(5):1318-1326. doi:10.1245/s10434-019-08159-0

54.

Jackson

Sanders

Park

, et al. Prospective study comparing surgeons’ pain and fatigue associated with nipple-sparing versus skin-sparing mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(10):3024-3031. doi:10.1245/s10434-017-5929-9

55.

Gabrielson

Wei

. Assessment of musculoskeletal pain and surgical ergonomic parameters among members of the American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2024;176:111765. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2023.111765

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.03 MB

1.00 MB