Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ergonomics of disposable handles for minimally invasive surgery

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The ergonomic deficiencies of currently available minimally invasive surgery (MIS) instrument handles have been addressed in many studies. In this study, a new ergonomic pistol handle concept, realized as a prototype, and two disposable ring handles were investigated according to ergonomic properties set by new European standards.

Methods

In this study, 25 volunteers performed four practical tasks to evaluate the ergonomics of the handles used in standard operating procedures (e.g., measuring a suture and cutting to length, precise maneuvering and targeting, and dissection of a gallbladder). Moreover, 20 participants underwent electromyography (EMG) tests to measure the muscle strain they experienced while carrying out the basic functions (grasp, rotate, and maneuver) in the x, y, and z axes. The data measured included the number of errors, the time required for task completion, perception of pressure areas, and EMG data. The values for usability in the test were effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction. Surveys relating to the subjective rating were completed after each task for each of the three handles tested.

Results

Each handle except the new prototype caused pressure areas and pain. Extreme differences in muscle strain could not be observed for any of the three handles. Experienced surgeons worked more quickly with the prototype when measuring and cutting a suture (~20%) and during precise maneuvering and targeting (~20%). On the other hand, they completed the dissection task faster with the handle manufactured by Ethicon. Fewer errors were made with the prototype in dissection of the gallbladder. In contrast to the handles available on the market, the prototype was always rated as positive by the volunteers in the subjective surveys.

Conclusions

None of the handles could fulfil all of the requirements with top scores. Each handle had its advantages and disadvantages. In contrast to the ring handles, the volunteers could fulfil most of the tasks more efficiently using the prototype handle without any remarkable pressure areas, cramps, or pain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. MDD, the Medical Device Directive 2007/47/EG

References

  1. Berguer R, Gerber S, Kilpatrik G, Beckley D (1998) An ergonomic comparison of inline versus pistol-grip handle configuration in a laparoscopic grasper. Surg Endosc 12:805–808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berguer R, Gerber S, Kilpatrick G, Remler M, Beckley D (1999) A comparison of forearm and thumb muscle electromyographic responses to the use of laparoscopic instruments with either a finger grasp or a palm grasp. Ergonomics 42:1634–1645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith DW (2001) The effect of laparoscopic instrument working angle on surgeons’ upper extremity workload. Surg Endosc 15:1027–1029

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Delagi EF, Iazetti J, Perotto A, Morrison D (1989) Elektromyographie der Extremitäten Ferdinand Enke. Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  5. Emam TA, Frank TG, Hanna GB, Stockham G, Cuschieri A (1999) Rocker handle for endoscopic needle drivers: technical and ergonomic evaluation by infrared motion analysis. Surg Endosc 13:658–661

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Emam TA, Frank TG, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (2001) Influence of handle design on the surgeon’s upper limb movements, muscle recruitment, and fatigue during endoscopic suturing. Surg Endosc 15:667–672

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. EN IEC 62366-Ed. 1.0–medical devices (2007) Application of usability engineering to medical devices. IEC Geneva, Beuth Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hanna GB, Shimi S, Cuschieri A (1997) Optimal port locations for endoscopic intracorporal knotting. Surg Endosc 11:397–401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Horgan LF, O’Riordan DC, Doctor N (1997) Neurapraxia following laparoscopic procedures: an occupational hazard. Min Invas Ther Allied Technol 6:33–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ISO/IEC 25062 (2006) Software engineering: software product quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE): common industry format (CIF) for usability test reports. Beuth Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kano N, Kasugai H, Yamakawa T (1993) Laparoscopic surgeon’s thumb. Arch Surg 128:1172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewis JR (1991) Psychometric evaluation of an after-scenario questionnaire for computer usability studies. IGCHI Bull 23:78–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lotz JC (1997) The suffering surgeon. Surg Endosc 11:548

    Google Scholar 

  14. Majeed AW, Jacob G, Reed MW, Johnson AG (1993) Laparoscopist’s thumb: an occupational hazard? Arch Surg 128:357

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Matern U, Koneczny S (2006) Ergebnisse der Umfrage zu den Arbeitsbedingungen im OP auf dem Deutschen Chirurgenkongress 2004. Zentralbl Chir 131:393–400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Matern U, Waller P (1999) Instruments for minimally invasive surgery: principles of ergonomic handles. Surg Endosc 13:174–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Matern U, Waller P, Eichenlaub M, Rückauer KD (1999) MIS instruments: an experimental comparison of various laparoscopic handles and their design. Surg Endosc 13:756–762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Matern U, Giebmeyer C, Bergmann R, Faist M (2001) Ergonomic aspects of different handles for minimally invasive surgery: an EMG-based study. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 45th annual meeting, pp 1269–1273

  19. Matern U, Waller P, Giebmeyer C, Rückauer KD, Farthmann EH (2001) Ergonomics: requirements for adjusting the height of laparoscopic operating tables. JSLS 5:7–12

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Matern U, Giebmeyer C, Bergmann R, Waller P, Faist M (2002) Ergonomic aspects of four different types of laparoscopic instrument handles with respect to elbow angle: an EMG-based study. Surg Endosc 16:1528–1532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Matern U, Kuttler G, Giebmeyer C, Waller P, Faist M (2004) Ergonomic aspects of five different types of laparoscopic instrument handles under dynamic conditions with respect to specific laparoscopic tasks: an electromyographic-based study. Surg Endosc 18:1231–1241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Melzer A (1996) Endoscopic instruments: conventional and intelligent. In: Touli J, Hunter J, Gossot D (eds) Endosurgery. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 69–95

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mueller LP (1993) Laparoscopic instrument grips: an ergonomic approach. Surg Endosc 7:465–466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Patkin M (1997) A checklist for handle design. Ergonom Australia 11(2). http://www.uq.edu.au/eaol/Apr97/handle.html. Accessed 7 June 2003

  25. Quick NE, Gillette JC, Shapiro R, Adrales GL, Park AE (2003) The effect using laparoscopic instruments on muscle activation patterns during minimally invasive surgical training procedures. Surg Endosc 17:462–465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Van der Zee DC, Bax NMA (1995) Digital nerve compression due to laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 9(6):740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Veelen MA, Meijer DW, Goossens RHM, Snijders CJ (2001) New ergonomic criteria for handles of laparoscopic dissection forceps. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Van Veelen MA, Meijer DW, Goossens RHM, Snijders CJ, Jakimowicz JJ (2002) Improved usability of a new handle design for laparoscopic dissection forceps. Surg Endosc 16:201–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zipp P (1982) Recommendations for the standardization of lead positions in surface electromyography. Eur J Appl Physiol 50:35–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank Prof. C. D. Claussen, MD (University Hospital of Tübingen, Germany), for his support during this study and for his review of this article.

Disclosures

D. Büchel, R. Mårvik, B. Hallabrin and U. Matern have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Experimental OR and Ergonomics, University Hospital of Tübingen, Ernst-Simon-Strasse 16, 72072, Tübingen, Germany

    D. Büchel, B. Hallabrin & U. Matern

  2. National Center for Advanced Laparoscopic Surgery, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

    R. Mårvik

Authors
  1. D. Büchel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Mårvik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Hallabrin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. U. Matern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Büchel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Büchel, D., Mårvik, R., Hallabrin, B. et al. Ergonomics of disposable handles for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 24, 992–1004 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0714-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0714-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation