Reply: Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries in Plastic Surgeons in the United States, Canada, and Norway
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sir: We would like to thank Drs. Ando, Fuse, and Yamamoto for their letter regarding our recently published study entitled “Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries in Plastic Surgeons in the United States, Canada, and Norway.”1 In their letter, the authors describe a modified microscope with a screen that allows both the surgeon and the assistant to look forward instead of down while performing microsurgical procedures. In our study, we found that microsurgery was one of the three plastic surgical procedures most likely to exacerbate musculoskeletal symptoms. We also found that long surgery duration and prolonged neck flexion were two of the three maneuvers most likely to trigger musculoskeletal symptoms. Therefore, the novel idea presented by Drs. Ando, Fuse, and Yamamoto is of great potential benefit, because it allows microsurgeons to avoid prolonged neck flexion. Perhaps even more harmful than neck flexion is forward head posture, which microsurgeons tend to adopt to reach the eyepiece of the microscope, which is usually located over the patient. Forward head posture causes significant strain on the neck: for every inch of forward head positioning, the stress exerted by the head on the neck increases by 10 lb.2 Because the authors use the microscope at various magnifications for the entire surgical procedure, including flap elevation, the camera also obviates the need for surgical loupes, which are thought to contribute to neck pain. Although several studies have failed to demonstrate a significant association between modern lightweight loupes and musculoskeletal symptoms,3,4 the authors’ idea may have great benefit nonetheless. Some questions regarding this new technology remain: How steep is the learning curve, in terms of hand-eye coordination, for the microsurgeon who is accustomed to operating with a conventional microscope? Does the new system allow the assistant to actively participate in the operation, or does it diminish the operating experience of the trainee? A study evaluating surgical outcomes, operating times, and the experience of both the surgeon and the trainee with the new system would be a welcome addition to both the microsurgery and ergonomics fields. DISCLOSURE Dr. Janis has served as a consultant for LifeCell, Bard, Daiichi Sankyo, Pacira, and Allergan within the last 12 months prior to submission of this article but has no active conflicts of interest, and receives royalties from Thieme Publishing. Drs. Khansa, Westvik, Lista, and Khansa have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Ahmad receives royalties from Thieme Publishing. Ibrahim Khansa, M.D.Division of Plastic and Maxillofacial SurgeryChildren’s Hospital Los AngelesLos Angeles, Calif. Lara Khansa, Ph.D.Department of Business Information TechnologyPamplin College of BusinessVirginia TechBlacksburg, Va. Tormod S. Westvik, M.D.Division of Plastic SurgeryTelemark HospitalSkien, Norway Jamil Ahmad, M.D.Frank Lista, M.D.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity of TorontoToronto, Ontario, Canada Jeffrey E. Janis, M.D.Department of Plastic SurgeryThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical CenterColumbus, Ohio
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle