Suppr超能文献

腹腔镜和机器人腹股沟疝修补术中网片的置入和固定的人机工程学差异。

Ergonomic differences in mesh placement and mesh fixation between laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair with mesh.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6880, USA.

Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.

出版信息

Hernia. 2024 Dec;28(6):2355-2365. doi: 10.1007/s10029-024-03168-9. Epub 2024 Oct 1.

Abstract

PURPOSE

General differences in surgeon ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repairs (LIHR vs. RIHR) have been previously studied. However, specific differences in the ergonomics of mesh placement (MP) and mesh fixation (MF) are undetermined. Our aim was to determine if there are differences in the ergonomics of MP and MF between the surgical approaches. We hypothesize that we will identify differences, with the potential for worse ergonomics during LIHR.

METHODS

Data was collected from fifteen LIHR and fifteen RIHR. All cases were elective, primary inguinal hernias completed by a fellowship-trained minimally invasive surgeon. Surface electromyography (EMG) of four upper extremity muscle groups, including the upper trapezius (UT), anterior deltoid (AD), flexor carpi radialis (FCR) and extensor digitorum (ED), was recorded bilaterally during MP and MF. Muscle activation as a percent of maximum voluntary contraction (%MVC) and muscle fatigue denoted as the median frequency of muscle activations (Fmed) were calculated for each muscle.

RESULTS

EMG analysis showed increased %MVC in LIHR compared to RIHR cases, with significant findings in the left UT, right UT, ED, and FCR for MP and MF and the left FCR during MP. Muscle fatigue was decreased in LIHR compared to RIHR cases, with significant differences in left FCR and right ED and AD.

CONCLUSION

Despite greater muscle activations during LIHR, RIHR had greater muscle fatigue. It is possible that short periods of high muscle activation are ergonomically protective during minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. Identifying these differences may aid in development of procedure-specific interventions to improve ergonomics.

摘要

目的

腹腔镜和机器人辅助腹股沟疝修补术(LIHR 与 RIHR)之间的外科医生工效学总体差异此前已有研究。然而,网片放置(MP)和网片固定(MF)的具体工效学差异尚未确定。我们的目的是确定两种手术方法在 MP 和 MF 方面的工效学是否存在差异。我们假设会发现差异,LIHR 术中潜在的工效学更差。

方法

从 15 例 LIHR 和 15 例 RIHR 中收集数据。所有病例均为择期、由接受过微创外科培训的研究员完成的原发性腹股沟疝。在 MP 和 MF 期间,双侧记录包括上斜方肌(UT)、前三角肌(AD)、桡侧腕屈肌(FCR)和伸指肌(ED)在内的四个上肢肌肉群的表面肌电图(EMG)。计算每个肌肉的最大自主收缩百分比(%MVC)和肌肉疲劳表示为肌肉激活的中值频率(Fmed)。

结果

EMG 分析显示 LIHR 病例的 %MVC 高于 RIHR 病例,MP 和 MF 时左侧 UT、右侧 UT、ED 和 FCR,以及 MP 时左侧 FCR 存在显著差异。LIHR 病例的肌肉疲劳较 RIHR 病例减少,左侧 FCR 和右侧 ED、AD 存在显著差异。

结论

尽管 LIHR 期间肌肉激活增加,但 RIHR 肌肉疲劳更严重。微创腹股沟疝修补术中,短时间的高肌肉激活可能在工效学上具有保护作用。确定这些差异可能有助于制定特定于手术的干预措施来改善工效学。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验