↓ Skip to main content

Validation of ergonomic instructions in robot-assisted surgery simulator training

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Validation of ergonomic instructions in robot-assisted surgery simulator training
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5959-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. D. P. Van’t Hullenaar, A. C. Mertens, J. P. Ruurda, I. A. M. J. Broeders

Abstract

Training in robot-assisted surgery focusses mainly on technical skills and instrument use. Training in optimal ergonomics during robotic surgery is often lacking, while improved ergonomics can be one of the key advantages of robot-assisted surgery. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess whether a brief explanation on ergonomics of the console can improve body posture and performance. A comparative study was performed with 26 surgical interns and residents using the da Vinci skills simulator (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). The intervention group received a compact instruction on ergonomic settings and coaching on clutch usage, while the control group received standard instructions for usage of the system. Participants performed two sets of five exercises. Analysis was performed on ergonomic score (RULA) and performance scores provided by the simulator. Mental and physical load scores (NASA-TLX and LED score) were also registered. The intervention group performed better in the clutch-oriented exercises, displaying less unnecessary movement and smaller deviation from the neutral position of the hands. The intervention group also scored significantly better on the RULA ergonomic score in both the exercises. No differences in overall performance scores and subjective scores were detected. The benefits of a brief instruction on ergonomics for novices are clear in this study. A single session of coaching and instruction leads to better ergonomic scores. The control group showed often inadequate ergonomic scores. No significant differences were found regarding physical discomfort, mental task load and overall performance scores.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 24 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 28%
Engineering 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 25 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,031,309
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,522
of 6,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,338
of 440,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#62
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.