An estimation of the endoscopist's musculoskeletal injury risk for right and left lateral decubitus positions during colonoscopy: a field-based ergonomic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy exposes endoscopists to awkward postures and prolonged forces, which increases their risk of musculoskeletal injury. Patient positioning has a significant impact on the ergonomics of colonoscopy. Recent trials have found the right lateral decubitus position is associated with quicker insertion, higher adenoma detection rates, and greater patient comfort compared to the left lateral decubitus position. However, this patient position is perceived as more strenuous by endoscopists. METHODS: Nineteen endoscopists were observed performing colonoscopies during a series of four-hour endoscopy clinics. Durations of each patient position (right lateral decubitus, left lateral decubitus, prone, and supine) were recorded for all observed procedures (n = 64). Endoscopist injury risk was estimated by a trained researcher for the first and last colonoscopies of the shifts (n = 34) using Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), an observational ergonomic tool that estimates risk of musculoskeletal injury by scoring postures of the upper body and factors such as muscle use, force, and load. The total RULA scores were compared with a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test for patient position (right and left lateral decubitus) and time (first and last procedures) with significance taken at p < 0.05. Endoscopist preferences were also surveyed. RESULTS: The right lateral decubitus position was associated with significantly higher RULA scores than the left lateral decubitus position (median 5 vs. 3, p < 0.001). RULA scores were not significantly different between the first and last procedures of the shifts (median 5 vs. 5, p = 0.816). 89% of endoscopists preferred the left lateral decubitus position, primarily due to superior ergonomics and comfort. CONCLUSION: RULA scores indicate an increased risk of musculoskeletal injury in both patient positions, with greater risk in the right lateral decubitus position.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".