¹Ambu Innovation GmbH, Research and Development, Engineering, Augsburg, Germany
²Institute of Occupational and Social Medicine and Health Services Research, University Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

Text

Introduction: Endourology requires physical interaction between the clinician and the endoscope to insert, guide and manoeuvre the tip of the insertion portion. However, endoscopy is only part of the expertise of urologists, who perform, for instance, also laparoscopy and microsurgery. With this variety of procedures, maintaining optimal ergonomics in the daily practice can be challenging. Consequently, musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are frequent among urologists with a rate up to 85% [1], affecting not only the physical health, but also the mental one, mirrored by their high level of burnout, the highest among healthcare professionals [2]. The physical characteristics of the ureteroscope can significantly impact the ergonomics, but what urologists would like to improve of the device remains unknown. Aim of the study is to assess the link between MSD, procedure characteristics and what users would like to change of the endoscope design.

Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted focused on demographic, ergonomics and MSD and shared among active endoscopists who participated voluntarily.

Results: Preliminary results are based on 24 endoscopists’ responses (8 female). 46% of the responders reported having or having had work-related MSD, located mainly in the lower back (n=6), upper back and thumb (n=5), and shoulder (n=4). Repetitive movements, position during procedures and weight of the endoscope were rated as the main causes of MSD development. Respectively, 9% and 50% of the responders strongly agreed and agreed that would like to have a lighter ureteroscopes.

Discussion: The weight of the endoscope was considered among the main causes of MSD and simultaneously, the main ergonomic design request to be implemented in endoscopes. Single-use endoscopes can be a solution being lighter than reusable [3], [4]. aScope Uretero (Ambu A/S) is, for instance, 154 g (Ambu internal data), i.e. 16% of the weight of the reusable URF V2 (Olympus). Having a lighter ureteroscope can be beneficial for endoscopists to reduce the muscle activation, especially among women [5], and it can be easier to maneuver, which can improve the precision of the procedure and the overall procedure time [6].

Conclusion: By reducing the weight of the ureteroscope, we can mitigate the risk of MSD, promoting career longevity and overall job satisfaction.

References

[1] Tjiam IM, Goossens RH, Schout BM, Koldewijn EL, Hendrikx AJ, Muijtjens AM, Scherpbier AJ, Witjes JA. Ergonomics in endourology and laparoscopy: an overview of musculoskeletal problems in urology. J Endourol. 2014 May;28(5):605-11. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0654
[2] Razavi S, De EJB. Ergonomics in Urology: Silent Contributor to Burnout Among Women in Urology? Urology. 2023 Mar;173:222-5. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.12.013
[3] Proietti S, Somani B, Sofer M, Pietropaolo A, Rosso M, Saitta G, Gaboardi F, Traxer O, Giusti G. The "Body Mass Index" of Flexible Ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2017 Oct;31(10):1090-5. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0438
[4] Vaccaro C, Lorusso V, Palmisano F, Rosso M, Nicola M, Granata AM, Gregori A, Talso M. Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: How Difficult Is It Today to Stay Up to Date? A Pictorial Review of Instruments Available in Europe in 2023. J Clin Med. 2023 Dec 13;12(24):7648. doi: 10.3390/jcm12247648
[5] Kim E, Sun A, Rodriguez-Alvarez JS, Ho L, O'Laughlin K, De S. Gender differences in ergonomics during simulated ureteroscopy. Am J Surg. 2024 Sep;235:115691. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.02.034
[6] Salvadó JA, Cabello JM, Moreno S, Cabello R, Olivares R, Velasco A. Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study. Cent European J Urol. 2019;72(3):280-284. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1962