J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2020; 81(S 01): S1-S272
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702412
Oral Presentations
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Ergonomics in Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery: A Survey of the North American Skull Base Society

Pier Paolo Mattogno
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Agostino Gemelli Foundation, Rome, Italy
,
Davide Mattavelli
2   Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
,
Filippo Marciano
3   Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
,
Michael P. Catalino
4   Pituitary and Neuroendocrine Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Alberto Schreiber
2   Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
,
Paola Cocca
3   Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
,
Piero Nicolai
2   Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
,
Edward R. Laws
4   Pituitary and Neuroendocrine Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Ian Witterick
5   Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Shaan M. Raza
6   Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
,
Anand K. Devaiah
7   Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Liverana Lauretti
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Agostino Gemelli Foundation, Rome, Italy
,
Alessandro Olivi
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Agostino Gemelli Foundation, Rome, Italy
,
Marco M. Fontanella
8   Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
,
Fred Gentili
9   Department of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Francesco Doglietto
8   Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
05. Februar 2020 (online)

 

Background and Objective: Different surgical set-ups have been described for endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (ETS), but studies on their ergonomics are limited. The aim of this paper is to describe present trends in surgical positioning and other ergonomics aspects of ETS.

Methods: A 33-question, web-based survey was administered to North American Skull Base Society members from January to April 2018.

Results: Out of 116 respondents, 107 reported being involved in ETS (92%) and 93 completed the survey (response rate: 87%). Most respondents were from North America (76%) in academic practice (87%), not in training (91%) and neurosurgeons (65%). Most (73%) had more than 5-year experience in ETS, received specific training (66%), and performed at least five procedures/month (55%). Mean reported time for standard and complex procedures were 3.7 and 6.3 hours, respectively. Most use image guidance (84%), use a binostril technique and work with a partner (95%). The most frequent position of the first surgeon during tumor removal is: standing (94%), holding suction (89%), and dissector (83%) or grasping forceps (38%). In some set-ups the endoscope is held by the primary surgeon (22–24%). Usually, the second surgeon holds the endoscope (72%) and irrigation (42%) or suction (37%). Most respondents position the patient in a supine position, with the head in neutral position (46%) or rotated to the side (38%). During tumor removal surgeons stand on the same side (65–66%). Most (81%) tailor surgery for ergonomic considerations and select instruments accordingly (92%). Surgical factors that are considered important for maximizing ergonomics in addition to surgical access and visualization include: sphenoidotomy (71%), septectomy (69%), removal of sphenoid septa, and sellar opening (67%) and dural opening (51%). Patient-specific factors include: modification of middle turbinate (53%) and need of septoplasty (31%). The most looked-at ergonomic attendances are: height of table/bed head (86%), monitor placement (80%), attention to posture (60%), and patient position adjustments during surgery (50%). Many respondents report strain at the dorso-lumbar (50%) or cervical (26%) level. Almost one-third incorporates a pause during surgery to stretch and move. Half of the respondents engage in physical activity to be fit for surgery and 16% sought medical attention for ergonomic-related symptoms.

Conclusion: Most responders value ergonomics as an element to be taken into consideration for ETS. The variability in surgical set-ups and the relatively high report of complaints underline the need of studies to optimize ergonomics in endoscopic transnasal skull base surgery.