Surgeon Upper Extremity Kinematics During Error and Error-Free Retropubic Trocar Passage
Introduction and hypothesis Surgeon kinematics play a significant role in the prevention of patient injury. We hypothesized that elbow extension and ulnar wrist deviation are associated with bladder injury during simulated midurethral sling (MUS) procedures. Methods We used motion capture technology...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International Urogynecology Journal 2024-05, Vol.35 (5), p.1027-1034 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Introduction and hypothesis
Surgeon kinematics play a significant role in the prevention of patient injury. We hypothesized that elbow extension and ulnar wrist deviation are associated with bladder injury during simulated midurethral sling (MUS) procedures.
Methods
We used motion capture technology to measure surgeons’ flexion/extension, abduction/adduction, and internal/external rotation angular time series for shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints. Starting and ending angles, minimum and maximum angles, and range of motion (ROM) were extracted from each time series. We created anatomical multibody models and applied linear mixed modeling to compare kinematics between trials with versus without bladder penetration and attending versus resident surgeons. A total of 32 trials would provide 90% power to detect a difference.
Results
Out of 85 passes, 62 were posterior to the suprapubic bone and 20 penetrated the bladder. Trials with versus without bladder penetration were associated with more initial wrist dorsiflexion (−27.32 vs −9.03°,
p
= 0.01), less final elbow flexion (39.49 vs 60.81,
p
= 0.03), and greater ROM in both the wrist (27.48 vs 14.01,
p
= 0.02), and elbow (20.45 vs 12.87,
p
= 0.04). Wrist deviation and arm pronation were not associated with bladder penetration. Compared with attendings, residents had more ROM in elbow flexion (14.61 vs 8.35°,
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0937-3462 1433-3023 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00192-024-05772-w |