Quantitative Ergonomic Comparison of Traditional Versus Endoscopic-Assisted Tonsillectomies: A Prospective Case-Control Study
- PMID: 37275117
- PMCID: PMC10235283
- DOI: 10.1007/s12070-022-03440-3
Quantitative Ergonomic Comparison of Traditional Versus Endoscopic-Assisted Tonsillectomies: A Prospective Case-Control Study
Abstract
Objective: Quantitatively compare the ergonomics of traditional tonsillectomy versus an endoscopic-assisted tonsillectomy. Methods: The physical positioning of the senior author was studied during a simulation of two different operative approaches to tonsillectomy: one using an endoscope and one using direct visualization without the aid of an endoscope. Whole-body postural data was collected and analyzed using the validated Rapid Upper Limb Assessments (RULA) tool to calculate the risk of musculoskeletal injuries. Results: Severe neck and trunk flexion are high-risk postures unique to the traditional approach. The RULA score for the traditional, non-endoscopic approach was 5, with a Neck, Trunk, and Leg Score of 6 and a Wrist/Arm score of 1. The RULA score for the endoscopic-assisted approach was 3, with a Neck, Trunk, and Leg score of 4 and a Wrist/Arm score of 1. The difference between the two approaches narrowed down to the effect on neck positioning (angle decreased from > 20 degrees with traditional to nearly 0 degrees with endoscopic) and trunk positioning (angle decreased from 20 to 60 degrees with traditional to 0 degrees with endoscopic). Conclusion: An endoscopic-assisted approach to tonsillectomy allowed for a lower RULA score compared to the traditional tonsillectomy. This study suggests that an endoscopic approach may decrease the potential for musculoskeletal strain and reduce occupational-related pain and injury seen in practicing otolaryngologists.
Keywords: Adenotonsillectomy; Endoscopes; Ergonomics; Tonsillectomy.
© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2022. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of InterestThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Ryan MT, Montgomery EA, Fryer J, Yang AW, Mills C, Watson N et al (2022) Ergonomics in Otolaryngology: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.Laryngoscope. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources