Surgeon Ergonomics During Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Orthopaedic surgeons experience work-related musculoskeletal symptoms (WMS) due to working conditions. This study aimed to provide risk factors for WMS and preventative solutions during shoulder arthroscopy, as well as ergonomic differences between lateral decubitus and beach chair positioning. Methods: A pilot study of observational functional assessments through video analysis by an occupational therapist was performed. Two shoulder surgeons were recorded performing shoulder surgery in the lateral decubitus and beach-chair positions. Results: Surgeon A performed two procedures in the beach-chair position. Surgeon B performed a procedure in the lateral decubitus position. A risk factor for neck strain was monitor positioning. Shoulder strain was related to instrument length, patient height, and patient positioning in the lateral decubitus position, causing reaching and composite shoulder motions up to 90 degrees abduction with internal rotation and scapular elevation for periods of up to three-minutes. Repetitive end-range wrist motion was identified, as well as sustained static standing. Recommended solutions to preventing WMS were identified as monitor positioning perpendicular and at or slightly below surgeon eye level, minimizing back motion, employing proximal arm movements more often, and footwear or standing pads, or changing stance. Conclusion: Patient height, monitor position, length of arthroscopic equipment, working distance from the surgical field, and patient positioning in the lateral decubitus position were risk factors for WMS during arthroscopic shoulder surgery in this study. The lateral decubitus position resulted in increased, sustained periods of composite shoulder motions in positions at risk for WMS about the neck and shoulders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".