Modern methods of physiological and ergonomic assessment of working posture among surgeons

The work of surgeons is one of the most time-consuming and responsible areas of human activity. The main element of the profession is operational activity, characterized by high physical, mental and social stress. An important feature of the work of a surgeon is a prolonged stay in a forced working position, which, according to modern data, contributes to the development of diseases of the musculoskeletal system and nervous system, such as osteochondrosis, shoulder-scapular periarthrosis and tunnel syndromes. Such diseases can cause disability, a decrease in the quality of life, a reduction in career duration, and a deterioration in the quality of surgical care. Despite the importance of the problem, generally accepted methods for assessing the working posture of surgeons remain insufficiently accurate and comprehensive, which limits the possibilities for developing effective preventive measures.

A review of the literature has been conducted in order to generalize and analyze modern methods of physiological and ergonomic assessment of working posture using the example of surgeons. The publications were searched using bibliographic databases Scopus, MedLine, Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, RSCI, Cyberleninka.

The presented data indicate a high prevalence of diseases of the musculoskeletal system among surgeons associated with prolonged exposure to high-risk forced positions, static loads and suboptimal organization of the workspace. Modern methods of physiological and ergonomic assessment of working posture include semi-direct observation methods based on visual analysis and scoring of forced posture on standardized scales, provide effective rapid diagnosis of ergonomic risk. However, these approaches do not allow tracking the dynamics of the load on the neuromuscular apparatus in real time. Direct methods based on the use of inertial measuring devices and wireless surface electromyography allow for objective, high-precision dynamic monitoring of the working posture. They provide registration of kinematic parameters (angles of flexion, extension and deviation of body segments), quantification of muscle activity (by changing the amplitude and frequency characteristics of the signal) and timing of time spent in forced poses, which allows you to stratify ergonomic risk and identify critical movement patterns. In the future, an integrated approach to assessing and optimizing the working posture of surgeons based on a combination of subjective and objective methods will not only improve the health and quality of life of surgeons, but can also increase the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions.

Funding. The work was carried out within the framework of funds allocated for the implementation of the state task of the East-Siberian Institute of Medical and Ecological Research.

Conflict of interest. The author declares no conflict of interest.

Received: 22.10.2025 / Accepted: 24.11.2025 / Published: 20.12.2025

1. Tursunbekova A.S. The hygienic evaluation of indicators of intensity of labour the physicians surgeons. Evraziyskiy Soyuz Uchenykh. 2014; 8: 6. https://elibrary.ru/xgxpzr (in Russian).

2. Epstein S., Sparer E.H., Tran B.N., Ruan Q.Z., Dennerlein J.T., Singhal D., et al. Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Surgeons and Interventionalists: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2018; 153(2): e174947. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4947

3. Swank K.R., Furness J.E., Baker E., Gehrke C.K., Rohde R. A Survey of Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Orthopaedic Surgeon: Identifying Injuries, Exacerbating Workplace Factors, and Treatment Patterns in the Orthopaedic Community. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. Glob. Res. Rev. 2021; 6(5): e20.00244. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-20-00244

4. Kosarev V.V., Babanov S.A. Professional'nye zabolevaniya meditsinskikh rabotnikov [Occupational diseases of medical workers]. M.: INFRA-M; 2023 (in Russian).

5. Catanzarite T., Tan-Kim J., Whitcomb E.L., Menefee S. Ergonomics in Surgery: A Review. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2018; 24(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000456

6. Alaqeel M., Tanzer M. Improving ergonomics in the operating room for orthopaedic surgeons in order to reduce work-related musculoskeletal injuries. Ann. Med. Surg. (Lond). 2020; 56: 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.06.020

7. Morrison J.J., Jiao A., Robinson S., Jahangiri Y., Kaufman J.A. Prevalence of Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Interventional Radiologists. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2020; 31(8): 1308–1314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2020.02.015

8. Maxner A., Gray H., Vijendren A. A systematic review of biomechanical risk factors for the development of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in surgeons of the head and neck. Work. 2021; 69(1): 247–263. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-213474

9. Stucky C.H., Cromwell K.D., Voss R.K., Chiang Y.J., Woodman K., Lee J.E., et al. Surgeon symptoms, strain, and selections: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical ergonomics. Ann. Med. Surg. (Lond). 2018; 27: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2017.12.013

10. Dubel E.V., Unguryanu T.N. Hygienic assessment of working conditions for medical personnel in clinical and paraclinical departments of the hospital. Gigiena i sanitarya (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2016; 95(1): 53–57. https://elibrary.ru/vosqsh https://doi.org/10.18821/0016-99002016-95-1-53-57 (in Russian).

11. Park A., Lee G., Seagull F.J., Meenaghan N., Dexter D. Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2010; 210(3): 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.10.017

12. Vijendren A., Yung M. An overview of occupational hazards amongst UK otolaryngologists. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2016; 273(9): 2825–2832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4024-3

13. Szeto G.P.Y., Ho P., Ting A.C.W., Poon J.T.C., Cheng S.W.K., Tsang R.C.C., et al. Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms in surgeons. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2009; 19: 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9176-1

14. Tjiam I.M., Goossens R.H., Schout B.M., Koldewijn E.L., Hendrikx A.J., Muijtjens A.M., et al. Ergonomics in endourology and laparoscopy: an overview of musculoskeletal problems in urology. J. Endourol. 2014; 28: 605–611. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0654

15. Alqahtani S.M., Alzahrani M.M., Tanzer M. Adult reconstructive surgery: a high-risk profession for work-related injuries. J. Arthroplasty. 2016; 31: 1194–1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.025

16. Esposito C., Najmaldin A., Schier F., Yamataka A., Ferro M., Riccipetitoni G., et al. Work-related upper limb musculoskeletal disorders in pediatric minimally invasive surgery: a multicentric survey comparing laparoscopic and SILS ergonomy. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2014; 30: 395–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-013-3437-y

17. Asadi H., Monfared S., Athanasiadis D.I., Stefanidis D., Yu D. Continuous, integrated sensors for predicting fatigue during non-repetitive work: demonstration of technique in the operating room. Ergonomics. 2021; 64: 1160–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.1909753

18. Diego-Mas J.A., Alcaide-Marzal J. Using Kinect™ sensor in observational methods for assessing postures at work. Appl. Ergon. 2014; 45: 976–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.12.001

19. Jun D., Johnston V., McPhail S.M., O’Leary S. Are measures of postural behavior using motion sensors in seated office workers reliable? Hum. Factors. 2019; 61: 1141–1161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818821273

20. Mokhlespour Esfahani M.I., Nussbaum M.A., Kong Z. Using a smart textile system for classifying occupational manual material handling tasks: evidence from lab-based simulations. Ergonomics. 2019; 62: 823–833. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1578419

21. Carbonaro N., Mascherini G., Bartolini I., Ringressi M.N., Taddei A., Tognetti A., et al. A wearable sensor-based platform for surgeon posture monitoring: a tool to prevent musculoskeletal disorders. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18: 3734. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073734

22. Alberto R., Draicchio F., Varrecchia T., Silvetti A., Iavicoli S. Wearable monitoring devices for biomechanical risk assessment at work: current status and future challenges — a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2018; 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15092001

23. McAtamney L., Corlett E.N. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl. Ergon. 1993; 24(2): 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(93)90080-s

24. Hignett S., McAtamney L. Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Appl. Ergon. 2000; 31: 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00039-3

25. Karhu O., Kansi P., Kuorinka I. Correcting working postures in industry: a practical method for analysis. Appl. Ergon. 1977; 8: 199–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(77)90164-8

26. Sukadarin E.H., Deros B.M., Ghani J.A., Nawi N.S.M., Ismail A.R. Postural assessment in pen-and-paper-based observational methods and their associated health effects: a review. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2016; 22: 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2016.1156924

27. Gómez-Galán M., Pérez-Alonso J., Callejón-Ferre Á.-J., López-Martínez J. Musculoskeletal disorders: OWAS review. Ind Health. 2017; 55: 314–337. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2016-0191

28. Kee D. Systematic comparison of OWAS, RULA, and REBA based on a literature review. Int J Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19: 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010595

29. Unver-Okan S., Acar H.H., Kaya A. Determination of work postures with different ergonomic risk assessment methods in forest nurseries. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2017; 26: 7362–7371. https://clck.ru/3PBDww

30. Cremasco M.M., Giustetto A., Caffaro F., Colantoni A., Cavallo E., Grigolato S. Risk assessment for musculoskeletal disorders in forestry: a comparison between RULA and REBA in the manual feeding of a wood-chipper. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16: 793. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050793

31. Matern U., Koneczny S. Safety, hazards and ergonomics in the operating room. Surg. Endosc. 2007; 21: 1965–1969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9396-4

32. Berguer R., Forkey D.L., Smith W.D. Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg. Endosc. 2001; 15: 678–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00009635

33. Lee G., Lee M.R., Clanton T., Sutton E., Park A.E. Ergonomic risk assessment in minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review. Surgical Endoscopy. 2008; 23(1): 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0141-4

34. Sánchez-Margallo F.M., Sánchez-Margallo J.A. Assessment of postural ergonomics and surgical performance in laparoendoscopic single-site surgery using a handheld robotic device. Surg. Innov. 2018; 25: 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350618759768

35. Dwyer A., Huckleby J., Kabbani M., Delano A., De Sutter M., Crawford D. Ergonomic assessment of robotic general surgeons: a pilot study. J. Robot. Surg. 2020; 14: 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00996-1

36. Geregey A.M., Malakhova I.S., Moiseev Yu.B., Ivanov I.V., Glukhov D.V. Modern methods of physiological, hygienic and ergonomic evaluation of individual protective means. Med. truda i prom. ekol. 2018. 12: 46–51. https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2018-12-46-51 https://elibrary.ru/ypxlvr (in Russian).

37. Madgwick S.O.H., Harrison A.J.L., Vaidyanathan R. Estimation of IMU and MARG orientation using a gradient descent algorithm. IEEE Int. Conf. Rehabil. Robot. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975346

38. Parnandi A., Uddin J., Nilsen D.M., Schambra H.M. The pragmatic classification of upper extremity motion in neurological patients: a primer. Front. Neurol. 2019; 10: 996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00996

39. Shintemirov A., Taunyazov T., Omarali B., Nurbayeva A., Kim A., Bukeyev A., et al. An open-source 7-DOF wireless human arm motion-tracking system for use in robotics research. Sensors. 2020; 20: 3082. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20113082

40. Škulj G., Vrabič R., Podržaj P. A wearable IMU system for flexible teleoperation of a collaborative industrial robot. Sensors. 2021; 21: 5871. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21175871

41. Jackson M.M., et al. FIDO — facilitating interactions for dogs with occupations: wearable communication interfaces for working dogs. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0817-9

42. Khan Y., Ostfeld A.E., Lochner C.M., Pierre A., Arias A.C. Monitoring of vital signs with flexible and wearable medical devices. Adv. Mater. 2016; 28: 4373–4395. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201504366

43. Siddall A.G., et al. Validity of energy expenditure estimation methods during 10 days of military training. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13488

44. MacEira-Elvira P., Popa T., Schmid A.C., Hummel F.C. Wearable technology in stroke rehabilitation: towards improved diagnosis and treatment of upper-limb motor impairment. J. NeuroEng Rehabil. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0612-y

45. Sethi A., Ting J., Allen M., Clark W., Weber D. Advances in motion and electromyography based wearable technology for upper extremity function rehabilitation: a review. J. Hand. Ther. 2020; 33: 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2019.12.021

46. Huang C., Kim W., Zhang Y., Xiong S. Development and validation of a wearable inertial sensors-based automated system for assessing work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the workspace. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020; 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176050

47. Luinge H.J., Veltink P.H., Baten C.T. Ambulatory measurement of arm orientation. J. Biomech. 2007; 40: 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.01.010

48. Tognetti A., Lorussi F., Carbonaro N., De Rossi D. Wearable goniometer and accelerometer sensory fusion for knee joint angle measurement in daily life. Sensors. 2015; 15: 28435–28455. https://doi.org/10.3390/s151128435

49. Cereatti A., Gurchiek R., Mündermann A., Fantozzi S., Horak F., Delp S., et al. ISB recommendations on the definition, estimation, and reporting of joint kinematics in human motion analysis applications using wearable inertial measurement technology. J. Biomech. 2024; 173: 112225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2024.112225

50. Meltzer A.J., Hallbeck M.S., Morrow M.M., Lowndes B.R., Davila V.J., Stone W.M., et al. Measuring ergonomic risk in operating surgeons by using wearable technology. JAMA Surg. 2020; 155: 444–446. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.6384

51. Kotov-Smolenskiy A.M., Khizhnikova A.E., Klochkov A.S. et al. Surface EMG: applicability in the motion analysis and opportunities for practical rehabilitation. Fiziologiya cheloveka. 2021; 2: 122–134. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0131164621020041 (in Russian).

52. Nakayashiki A., Kawaguchi T., Nakagawa A., Mochizuki F., Furukawa H., Nagai A., et al. Reducing surgeon’s physical stress in minimally invasive neurosurgery. J. Neurol. Surg. A Cent. Eur. Neurosurg. 2019; 80: 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676622

53. Whittaker R.L., La Delfa N.J., Dickerson C.R. Algorithmically detectable directional changes in upper extremity motion indicate substantial myoelectric shoulder muscle fatigue during a repetitive manual task. Ergonomics. 2019; 62(3): 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1536808

54. McDonald A.C., Mulla D.M., Keir P.J. Muscular and kinematic adaptations to fatiguing repetitive upper extremity work. Applied. Ergonomics. 2019; 75: 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.11.001

55. Asadi H., Monfared S., Athanasiadis D.I., Stefanidis D., Yu D. Continuous, integrated sensors for predicting fatigue during non-repetitive work: demonstration of technique in the operating room. Ergonomics. 2021; 64: 1160–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.1909753

56. Merbah J., Caré B.R., Gorce P., Gadea F., Prince F. A new approach to quantifying muscular fatigue using wearable EMG sensors during surgery: an ergonomic case study. Sensors (Basel). 2023; 23: 1686. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031686

57. Vignais N., Bernard F., Touvenot G., Sagot J.-C. Physical risk factors identification based on body sensor network combined to videotaping. Appl Ergon. 2017; 65: 410–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.05.003

58. Moykin Yu.V. The role of labor physiology in improving working conditions at modern production facilities. In: Theoretical, historical and ethical issues of occupational medicine. (Inaugural speeches of leading scientists from the Research Institute of Occupational Medicine, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences). Moscow: MP "MAR"; 1994: 214–30 (in Russian).

59. Moykin Yu.V. Labor physiology, its achievements and tasks in modern production conditions. Russian Journal of Occupational Health and Industrial Ecology [Med. truda i prom. ekol.]. 1994; 11: 2–6 (in Russian).

60. Yushkova O.I., Kapustina A.V., Serikov V.V., Rubtsov M.Yu. The physiology of labor activity in the works of Yu.V. Moykin. Russian Journal of Occupational Health and Industrial Ecology [Med. truda i prom. ekol.]. 2022; 62(10): 694–699. https://elibrary.ru/hywsnb https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2022-62-10-694-699 (in Russian).