Back to all available

Musculoskeletal pain and surgical ergonomics among orthopedic residents in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study

anatomy-and-physiology
orthopedics
surgery-and-surgical-specialties
healthcare-services
sports-injury

Abstract

Background and aim: Ergonomics mitigate the risk of musculoskeletal pain (MSP) and injuries incurred by surgeons in the workplace. We determined the knowledge, attitude, and practice of surgical ergonomics and the prevalence of MSP among orthopedic residents in Saudi Arabia.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using a modified validated tool to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices as well as determine the prevalence and degree of MSP among orthopedic residents. We performed tests of associations between knowledge, attitude, and practice of surgical ergonomics with demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as its impact on the prevalence of MSP.

Results: Of 158 orthopedic residents, 77.8% were male, with most in PGY-1 and PGY-2. Significant MSP was reported by 75.9%, mainly in the lower back, feet, and neck. Trauma surgery caused the most discomfort (69%). MSP affected fellowship choices, mobility, and frustration tolerance. Changing position during surgery was the most common intervention. Good ergonomics knowledge (84.2%) and attitude (89.2%) were linked to a 32–34% lower MSP risk.

Conclusion: Significant MSP is common among orthopedic residents. Incorporating surgical ergonomics into training can improve awareness, reduce MSP, and enhance residents’ health, performance, and patient care.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].