Can Robots Keep You Upright?: An Ergonomic Analysis of Surgeon Posture in Robotic versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5242117/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Can Robots Keep You Upright?: An Ergonomic Analysis of Surgeon Posture in Robotic versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5242117/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Robotic-assisted technology has become an increasingly utilized adjunct within the realm of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Previous studies have shown that robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (raTKA) offers potential advantages of enhanced bony preparation and optimal implant alignment with equivalent long-term patient outcomes and component longevity in comparison to conventional TKA (cTKA). Furthermore, recent studies have identified the additional benefit of decreased surgeon physiologic stress with the use of raTKA. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in surgeon posture between primary raTKA and cTKA.

Materials and Methods

We prospectively evaluated 103 consecutive primary TKA cases (48 raTKAs, 55 cTKAs) performed by three high-volume, fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons. Throughout each case, surgeons wore a posture-tracking device to evaluate time spent slouching. The threshold for slouching was set to 30 degrees of flexion from a neutral spinal axis. Demographic and operative factors were collected. Two tailed tests and multivariate analysis were used to assess for differences between groups.

Results

After controlling for individual surgeon differences in posture, we found a decrease in percentage and duration of time spent slouching in raTKA cases compared to cTKA cases (42.4 vs 72.5%, P < 0.001, 35.4 vs 54.7 min, P = 0.037). On average, use of the robot decreased surgeon slouching time by 19.3 min (26.6%, p < 0.001). Patient factors such as increased age and ASA 2 were also associated with favorable effects on posture (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Surgeons performing primary raTKA cases spend significantly less case time and case percentage in a slouched posture compared to conventional primary TKA cases. This suggests potential for ergonomic benefit of robotic-assisted technology in primary TKA. Further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of posture on surgeon pain and career longevity.

posture

ergonomics

robotics

total knee arthroplasty

Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms (WRMS) represent a growing and underestimated problem in the surgical field [1]. Ergonomists have described WRMS in surgeons to be similar, if not greater, than those exhibited by certain industrial workers including coal miners and manufacturing laborers [2]. Orthopaedic surgery is no exception. It is a physically demanding field, which places stress on the musculoskeletal system from repetitive motions, prolonged standing and operating in non-ergonomic positions [3–8]. There is a high incidence of back and neck pain caused by static head and back-bent postures [9, 10]. Auerbach et al reported a career prevalence of 27.6% for cervical radiculopathy among orthopaedic surgeons, of whom 10.7% required surgical intervention and 18.9% required time off work, ranging from days to forced early retirement [11].

Among the subspecialties of orthopaedics, adult reconstruction may be the most laborious. [6, 7, 9, 10]. In a survey of 586 arthroplasty surgeons, McQivey et al, found that 96.5% experienced procedure related musculoskeletal pain with lower back and neck comprising 34.2% and 21.2% of complaints, respectively [10]. In another series, Alqahtani et al found over a quarter of arthroplasty surgeons surveyed required time off work at one point due to a work-related injury [6].

Robotic-assisted technology has become an increasingly utilized adjunct within the realm of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) [12, 13]. Previous studies have shown that robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (raTKA) offers potential advantages of enhanced bony preparation and optimal implant alignment with equivalent long-term patient outcomes and component longevity in comparison to cTKA (cTKA) [14, 15]. Moreover, a recent study by Haffar et al suggested that raTKA results in less surgeon physiological stress and energy expenditure compared to cTKAs. This study also demonstrated some postural benefit to raTKA, as the robot decreased surgeon mean lumbar flexion time significantly [16]. We hope to provide more insight on this topic by studying multiple surgeons with a larger patient cohort.

The purpose of this study was to compare differences in surgeon posture while performing primary raTKA and cTKA, as well as identify other patient or operating room factors that may influence surgeon ergonomics.

Data Collection

Following Institutional Review Board approval, we prospectively evaluated postural data on three high-volume, fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons while performing 103 consecutive, primary TKA cases (48 raTKAs, 55 cTKAs). The three surgeons were at varying stages of their career, ranging from 3 to over 20 years in practice. Perioperative postural data was collected for all cases via a posture tracking device (UPRIGHT GO, Tel Aviv, Isreal) worn by the surgeon throughout the case. At the start of each case, the operative room assistant began device data collection via the mobile device at the time of incision and terminated data collection for the case immediately prior to closing arthrotomy. The wearable device was positioned at the level of the cervicothoracic junction just below the C7 spinous process (Fig. 1). Data output for the device included the percent of operative time spent “upright” and “slouched” as well as the duration of the recorded session. Device settings were standardized for each surgeon for all cases. The threshold for “slouching” was set at 30 degrees of flexion from a neutral spinal axis. The threshold set for “slouching” in our study was 30 degrees from the neutral spinal axis. Studies done with the head positioned at 30 degrees anteriorly beyond neutral position found that there is a fourfold increase in weight observed in the cervical spine, which equates to a relative risk of 2 for development of neck pain [17, 18]. The device was re-calibrated prior to each case, with the surgeon standing at a neutral upright position as a baseline. The data from the device was sent to the surgeon’s mobile device and then uploaded to a data collection spreadsheet for analysis.

The surgeon, duration of surgery, robotic use, helmet type, consecutive case order number, and patient demographics for each case were recorded. Patient demographics collected included age, BMI (body mass index) and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) classification. Two helmet types were included in the study. The Stryker Flyte surgical helmet as well as a newer/lighter version Stryker T7 helmet were studied (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI). The robot used in all robotic cases was the Stryker MAKO robot (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI). Type of implants used in the cTKAs were surgeon dependent.

Demographics

All 103 patients were included in the final analysis. There were no exclusions. The average age of the cohort was 66.8 years and showed no difference between the robotic and conventional groups (P = .980). The average BMI was 31.2 and showed no difference between groups (P = .863). There were no differences in sex or ASA classification between groups either. (Table 1)

Table 1

Demographic Comparisons based on **Robotic TKA** (controlling for surgeon).
	Robotic TKA n = 48	Conventional TKA n = 55	P-value
Age (SD)	66.8 (7.7)	66.8 (8.4)	.980
Women % (n)	60.4 (29)	61.8 (34)	.499
BMI (SD)	31.1 (5.0)	31.2 (4.3)	.863
ASA Classification % (n) 1 2 3	6.3 (3) 41.7 (20) 52.1 (25)	0.0 (0) 37.0 (20) 63.0 (34)	.560

TKA, total knee arthroplasty; BMI, body mass index; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists

Controlling for Surgeon Posture

To control for certain differences or tendencies in posture between different surgeons, we conducted comparisons between groups clustered by surgeons. Table 1 shows baseline posture and operative time differences between the three surgeons while performing primary TKA. Posture data was also collected during clinic days to further act as a control variable for surgeon posture. Device time was manually started by the surgeon at the beginning and end of their clinic day. One surgeon had faster operative times than the other two (52.4 vs 74.5 and 82.4 min, P < 0.001). The two other surgeons showed differences in posture throughout all TKA cases (slouch percentage, 33.2% vs 70.9%, P < 0.001). One surgeon had shorter clinic time (158.7 vs 287.5 and 455.7min, P = 0.009), but all surgeons had similar posture throughout their clinic day (Table 2). Demographic, posture and surgical comparisons were clustered by surgeons to account for these differences.

Table 2

Comparison of posture between surgeons
Variable (SD)	Surgeon 1	Surgeon 2	Surgeon 3	P value
TKA Primary Upright % Slouch % Procedure Time (min)	N = 31 66.8 (17.8) 33.2 (17.8) 74.5 (14.6)	N = 67 29.1 (18.0) 70.9 (18.0) 82.4 (20.0)	N = 5 51.8 (18.0) 42.8 (18.0) 52.4 (8.6)	< .001 < .001 .001
Clinic Values Upright % Slouch % Device Time (min)	N = 4 54.8 (6.2) 45.2 (6.2) 287.5 (166.7)	N = 15 66.1 (25.0) 33.9 (25.0) 455.7 (88.2)	N = 3 75.3 (37.5) 24.7 (37.5) 158.7 (30.4)	.301 .301 .009
TKA, total knee arthroplasty

Data analysis:

Comparisons between groups were conducted Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) to cluster by surgeon. Values reported are Means (Standard Deviations) for continuous variables and Percentages (Counts) for categorical variables. Multivariate linear regressions were conducted using GEE to cluster by surgeon. All analyses were conducted using two-tailed tests with an alpha set at P = .05 with SPSS version 27 (IBM, Inc., Chicago, IL). A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using two-tailed tests of independent means, with an alpha = .05, and the achieved power was .99.

There was a decrease in percentage and duration of time spent slouching in raTKA cases compared to cTKA cases (42.4 vs 72.5%, P < 0.001, 35.4 vs 54.7 min, P = 0.037). We found no differences in operative time, case number, or type of helmet use between raTKA and cTKA (Table 3).

Table 3

Posture and Surgical Comparisons based on **Robotic TKA** (controlling for surgeon).
	Robotic TKA n = 48	Conventional TKA n = 55	P -value
Posture (SD) Upright % Upright (Min) Slouch % Slouch (Min)	57.6 (22.1) 44.9 (17.4) 42.4 (22.1) 35.4 (22.9)	27.5 (17.5) 21.0 (14.8) 72.5 (17.5) 54.7 (20.7)	< .001 < .001 < .001 .037
Procedure Time (SD)	80.3 (17.2)	77.0 (21.0)	.430
Case Number % (n) 1–3 4+	70.8 (34) 29.2 (14)	72.7 (40) 27.3 (15)	.711
Helmet % (n) Original New/Lightweight	0.0 (0) 100.0 (48)	9.1 (5) 90.9 (50)	0.198
TKA, total knee arthroplasty

In the multivariate analysis, use of robotic assistance was the only operative factor found to be an individual contributor to decreased slouching percentage (B -26.6, -11.8, -0.11, P < 0.001). In addition to use of robotic assistance, decreased operative time was found to be an individual contributor to decreased total time spent slouching (B -19.26, -10.13, 0.77, P < 0.001). Patient factors that resulted in decreased slouch percentage were increased patient age and ASA 2 classification (B − .11, P < 0.001 and − 4.59, P < 0.001). (Table 4)

Table 4

Multivariate Linear Regression Predicting **Slouching (% and Total Time) for TKA, Evaluating Demographics and Robotic TKA**, clustered by Surgeon (N = 103)
	Predicting Slouching %			Predicting Total Slouching (min)
	B	95% CI	p-value	B	95% CI	p-value
Age	− .28	− .5, − .1	.009	− .25	− .5, − .0	.048
Female Gender	2.15	-2.9, 7.1	.402	2.84	-1.5, 7.2	.198
BMI	.08	− .4, .6	.759	.14	− .29, .56	.529
ASA 2 Classification	-7.17	-12.4, -2.0	.007	-6.49	-11.4, -1.6	.009
Procedure Time	.10	− .1, .3	.388	.73	.64, .83	< .001
Robotic TKA	-28.9	-40.9, -17.0	< .001	-21.5	-29.9, -13.2	< .001

TKA, total knee arthroplasty; BMI, body mass index; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists

Orthopaedic surgery is a labor-intensive field, which places great stress on the musculoskeletal system through repetitive tasks done in non-ergonomic positions. The neck and lower back are especially at risk due to poor posture in the operating room [3–8]. Among the subspecialties of orthopaedics, adult reconstruction may be the most laborious [6, 7, 9, 10]. Robotic-assisted technology is becoming an increasingly utilized adjunct within the realm of primary TKA [12, 13]. Not only does robotic surgery offer reliable bony preparation and similar patient satisfaction to cTKA, a recent study showed decreased surgeon cardiovascular stress and strain in raTKA versus cTKA [16]. Our multivariate analysis found an ergonomic benefit for surgeons when using the robot for primary TKAs versus performing the procedure manually.

In a recent cadaveric study using motion sensors on the T3 and occiput to compare cervical spine postures and repetitive motions in surgeons performing conventional and robotic TKA, Scholl et al found significant differences in cervical and thoracic ergonomics [19]. They found that performing raTKA reduced repetitive motion and time spent in non-neutral positions in the cervical spine compared to cTKA. Our in-vivo study supports their results, as we found use of the robot was a significant individual predictor of decreased slouching percentage. On average, use of the robot decreased surgeon slouching time by 19.3 min (26.6%, P < 0.001). Operative time was an individual contributor to time spent slouching, but not percentage. In another study, Meltzer et al observed deviation from neutral spinal axis in a single orthopaedic surgeon using motion sensors in a series of cases. They found the surgeon spent over 50% of the case in high-risk neck and torso positions [20]. We found similar results in our study as the surgeons spent 72.5% of the case slouched in cTKA versus only 42.4% in raTKA (P < 0.001).

Development of robotic technologies in other surgical fields have promise for improving surgeon posture. A gynecologic surgery studying robotic use in hysterectomies showed both better ergonomic and lower cardiovascular demands in robotic surgery versus conventional [21]. Similarly, a urologic study in robotic assisted radical prostatectomies showed a reduction in demanding neck postures by 24% for the performing surgeon while using the robot [22]. Our study helps support these findings of ergonomic improvement with use of robotic technology.

In a recent study of 40 primary TKA by a single surgeon, Haffar et al found that raTKA results in less surgeon physiological stress and energy expenditure compared to cTKAs [16]. Their study also found significant increases at the surgeon’s cervical and lumbar flexion in conventional versus raTKA, indicating poorer posture in the conventional group. These findings agree with our study, however their study only included data from a single surgeon who was self-described as a novice on the robotic system they used during that study. In contrast, the current study included surgeon posture data during 103 TKAs performed by 3 surgeons, while controlling for individual surgeon posture. Furthermore, each surgeon was experienced in the robotic and conventional methods included during this study, making the results of our study more accurate in regard to the ergonomic strain seen during a surgeon’s normal surgical workflow.

There were several limitations to our study. First, while we prospectively collected data, patients were not randomized to receive conventional or robotic techniques. Therefore, patient preferences for robotic surgery or surgeon selection bias for use of robotic assistance may have skewed our results. Second, only one robotic system was used during this study, which does not allow us to generalize our findings across other robotic platforms. Third, surgeons in this study knew that they were being studied leading to potential bias through the Hawthorne effect. Lastly, the case numbers between the three surgeons had wide variation depending on availability of the surgeon during the study period with only one posture device shared amongst surgeons. Therefore, a single surgeon’s postural tendencies may have skewed our data despite controlling for the surgeon. Despite these limitations, this is the largest and most diverse series of in vivo surgeon posture comparison between conventional and robotic total knee arthroplasties.

Surgeons performing primary robotic-assisted TKA cases spend significantly less case time and case percentage in a slouched posture compared to primary cTKA cases. To our knowledge, this is the largest study observing the ergonomic benefit of robotic-assisted technology in primary TKA. Further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of orthopaedic surgeon posture on pain and career longevity.

Funding Declaration

There was no funding received for this research study.

Author Contribution

ZG- analysis of data and manuscript writingEM- editing manuscript and analysis of dataEK-organization of dataPD, CG, and GH- responsible of collection of data and editing manuscript

Data Availability

Data is provided within the manuscript. The excel sheet can be provided with raw data prior to analysis upon request.

Epstein S, Sparer EH, Tran BN, Ruan QZ, Dennerlein JT, Singhal D (2018) Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons and interventionalists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 153:E174947
Seagull FJ (2012) Disparities between industrial and surgical ergonomics. Work 41(suppl 1):4669–4672
Mirbod SM, Yoshida H, Miyamoto K (1995) Subjective complaints in orthopedists and general surgeons. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 67:179
Rademacher K, Pichler KV, Erbse S et al (1996) Using human factor analysis and VR simulation techniques for the optimization of the surgical worksystem. Stud Health Technol Inf 29:532–541
Lester JD, Hsu S, Ahmad CS (2012) Occupational hazards facing orthopaedic surgeons. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 41(3):132–139 PMID: 22530210
Alqahtani SM, Alzahrani MM, Tanzer M (2016) Adult Reconstructive Surgery: A High-Risk Profession for Work-Related Injuries. J Arthroplasty 31(6):1194–1198. 10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.025Epub 2015 Dec 21. PMID: 26791046
Vajapey SP, Li M, Glassman AH (2021) Occupational hazards of orthopaedic surgery and adult reconstruction: a cross-sectional study. J Orthop 25:23–30
Ryu RC, Behrens PH, Malik AT, Lester JD, Ahmad CS (2021) Are we putting ourselves in danger? Occupational hazards and job safety for orthopaedic surgeons. J Orthop 24:96–101
Davis WT, Fletcher SA, Guillamondegui OD (2013) et. al.: Occupational injury among orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:E107
McQuivey KS, Christopher ZK, Deckey DG, Mi L, Bingham J, Spangehl MJ (2021) Surgical ergonomics and musculoskeletal pain in arthroplasty surgeons. J Arthroplasty 36:3781–3787e7
Auerbach JD, Weidner ZD, Milby AH (2011) et. al.: Musculoskeletal disorders among spine surgeons: results of a survey of the Scoliosis Research Society membership. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:E1715
Wang JC, Piple AS, Hill WJ, Chen MS, Gettleman BS, Richardson M, Heckmann ND, Christ AB (2022) Computer-Navigated and Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: Increasing in Popularity Without Increasing Complications. J Arthroplasty 37(12):2358–2364 Epub 2022 Jun 20. PMID: 35738360
Bautista M, Manrique J, Hozack WJ (2019) Robotics in Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. ;32(7):600–606. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1681053. Epub 2019 Mar 1. PMID: 30822790
Kim YH, Yoon SH, Park JW (2020) Does Robotic-assisted TKA Result in Better Outcome Scores or Long-Term Survivorship Than Conventional TKA? A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. ;478(2):266–275. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000916. Erratum in: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479(6):1407. PMID: 31389889; PMCID: PMC7438149
Batailler C, Fernandez A, Swan J, Servien E, Haddad FS, Catani F, Lustig S (2021) MAKO CT-based robotic arm-assisted system is a reliable procedure for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29(11):3585–3598. 10.1007/s00167-020-06283-zEpub 2020 Sep 25. PMID: 32975626
Haffar A, Krueger CA, Goh GS, Lonner JH (2022) Total Knee Arthroplasty With Robotic Surgical Assistance Results in Less Physician Stress and Strain Than Conventional Methods. J Arthroplasty 37(6S):S193–S200. 10.1016/j.arth.2021.11.021Epub 2022 Feb 17. PMID: 35184931
Hansraj KK (2014) Assessment of stresses in the cervical spine caused by posture and position of the head. Surg Technol Int 25:277–279
Lindegård A, Gustafsson M, Hansson GÅ (2012) Effects of prismatic glasses including optometric correction on head and neck kinematics, perceived exertion and comfort during dental work in the oral cavity—a randomized controlled intervention. Appl Ergon 43(1):246–253
Scholl LY, Hampp EL, Alipit V, Sodhi N, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Dropkin J, Chen AF, Mont MA (2022) Effect of Manual versus Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty on Cervical Spine Static and Dynamic Postures. J Knee Surg 35(9):1010–1018. 10.1055/s-0040-1721412Epub 2021 Jan 28. PMID: 33511589
Meltzer AJ, Hallbeck MS, Morrow MM et al (2020) Measuring Ergonomic Risk in Operating Surgeons by Using Wearable Technology. JAMA Surg 155(5):444–446. 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.6384
Krämer B, Neis F, Reisenauer C, Walter C, Brucker S, Wallwiener D, Seibt R, Gabriel J, Rieger MA, Steinhilber B (2023) Save our surgeons (SOS) - an explorative comparison of surgeons' muscular and cardiovascular demands, posture, perceived workload and discomfort during robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 307(3):849–862 Epub 2022 Nov 19. PMID: 36401096; PMCID: PMC9676911
Yu D, Dural C, Morrow MM, Yang L, Collins JW, Hallbeck S, Kjellman M, Forsman M (2017) Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires. Surg Endosc. ;31(2):877–886. 10.1007/s00464-016-5047-y. Epub 2016 Aug 5. PMID: 27495330

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Can Robots Keep You Upright?: An Ergonomic Analysis of Surgeon Posture in Robotic versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Data Collection

Demographics

Controlling for Surgeon Posture

Data analysis:

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

Funding Declaration

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1