Objective assessment of postural ergonomics in neurosurgery: integrating wearable technology in the operating room

Abstract

Objective: Physical stress associated with the static posture of neurosurgeons over prolonged periods can result in fatigue and musculoskeletal disorders. Objective assessment of surgical ergonomics may contribute to postural awareness and prevent further complications. This pilot study examined the feasibility of using wearable technology as a biofeedback tool to address this gap.

Methods: Ten neurosurgeons, including 5 attendings (all faculty) and 5 trainees (1 fellow, 4 residents), were recruited and equipped with two wearable sensors attached to the back of their head and their upper back. The sensors collected the average time spent in extended (≤ -10°), neutral (> -10° and < 10°), and flexed (≥ 10°) static postures (undetected activity for more than 10 seconds) during spine and cranial procedures. Feasibility outcomes aimed for more than 70% of accurate data collection. Exploratory outcomes included the comparison of postural variability within and between participants adjusted to their demographics excluding nonrelated surgical activities, and postoperative self-assessment surveys.

Results: Sixteen (80%) of 20 possible recordings were successfully collected and analyzed from 11 procedures (8 spine, 3 cranial). Surgeons maintained a static posture during 52.7% of the active surgical time (mean 1.58 hrs). During spine procedures, all surgeons used an exoscope while standing, leading to a significantly longer time spent in a neutral static posture (p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.14): attendings remained longer in a neutral static posture (36.4% ± 15.3%) than in the extended (9% ± 6.3%) and flexed (5.7% ± 3.4%) static postures; trainees also remained longer in a neutral static posture (30.2% ± 13.8%) than in the extended (11.1% ± 6.3%) and flexed (11.9% ± 6.6%) static postures. During cranial procedures, surgeons intermittently transitioned between standing/exoscope use and sitting/microscope use, with trainees spending a shorter time in a neutral static posture (16.3% vs 48.5%, p < 0.001) and a longer time in a flexed static posture (18.5% vs 2.7%, p < 0.001) compared with attendings. Additionally, longer cranial procedures correlated with surgeons spending a longer time (r = 0.94) in any static posture (extended, flexed, and neutral), with taller surgeons exhibiting longer periods in flexed and extended static postures (r = 0.86). Postoperative self-assessment revealed that attendings perceived spine procedures as more difficult than trainees (p = 0.029), while trainees found cranial procedures to be of greater difficulty than spine procedures (p = 0.012). Attendings felt more stressed (p = 0.048), less calmed (p = 0.024), less relaxed (p = 0.048), and experienced greater stiffness in their upper body (p = 0.048) and more shoulder pain (p = 0.024) during cranial versus spine procedures.

Conclusions: Wearable technology is feasible to assess postural ergonomics and provide objective biofeedback to neurosurgeons during spine and cranial procedures. This study showed reproducibility for future comparative protocols focused on correcting posture and surgical ergonomic education.

Keywords: human-machine interface; objective biofeedback; postural ergonomics; wearable sensors.