MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415045492 · doi:10.1007/s00464-025-12227-w

Minimally invasive Distal Pancreatectomy eRgonOMic analysis – the DP-ROM trial: An explorative, prospective, observational, cohort study trial

2025· article· en· W4415045492 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo De Pastena, Salvatore Paiella, Alessandro Esposito, Elisa Venturini, Ermes Vedovi, Massimo Strazzer, Carlo Caselli, Giuseppe Malleo, Gabriella Lionetto, Antonio Pea, Luca Landoni, Elisa Danese, Roberto Salvia

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Endoscopy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
FundersUniversità degli Studi di Verona
KeywordsWorkloadHuman factors and ergonomicsCohort studyTrapezius muscleCohortRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (DP) improves patient outcomes but also introduces significant ergonomic challenges for surgeons. This study quantitatively compares the ergonomic stress and mental workload associated with laparoscopic versus robot-assisted DP. METHODS: An exploratory, prospective, observational cohort trial was conducted with two experienced pancreatic surgeons performing 20 DPs (10 laparoscopic using IMAGE1 S Rubina and 10 robot-assisted using da Vinci® Si platform). Ergonomic stress was assessed using stabilometric analysis, kinematic pelvic movement analysis, ocular examinations, cortisol level monitoring, and the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). RESULTS: Robot-assisted DP demonstrated superior ergonomic performance, with reduced physical and mental demands compared to laparoscopic DP. Stabilometric tests indicated significantly greater postural stability during robot-assisted surgery, characterized by lower variance in body oscillations. Kinematic analyses confirmed smoother pelvic movements in robot-assisted procedures, suggesting reduced physical fatigue. Visual strain was markedly higher during laparoscopic surgery, likely due to prolonged screen exposure. The NASA-TLX indicated significantly lower overall workload scores for robot-assisted DP (35.3 ± 19.5) compared to laparoscopic DP (50.7 ± 21.7, p = 0.04). Cortisol analyses consistently showed elevated stress levels in the laparoscopic group compared to the robotic group, reinforcing the finding of greater physiological stress in the laparoscopic setting. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted DP significantly reduces ergonomic stress, visual strain, and cognitive workload compared to laparoscopic DP. However, it also introduces specific ergonomic challenges, particularly involving neck and trapezius muscle strain. Future studies should investigate ergonomic modifications to further optimize surgeon well-being and performance during robot-assisted pancreatic procedures.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical EndoscopySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207