4.5 Article

Musculoskeletal Pain in Gynecologic Surgeons

Journal

JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages 656-660

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.04.013

Keywords

Disorders; Gynecology; Musculoskeletal; Pain; Surgeons

Funding

  1. Harvard Catalyst/Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (NIH Award) [UL1 RR 025758]
  2. Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and symptoms in gynecologic surgeons. Design: Prospective cross-sectional survey study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Virtual. All study participants were contacted and participated via electronic means. Participants: Gynecologic surgeons. Interventions: An anonymous, web-based survey was distributed to gynecologic surgeons via electronic newsletters and direct E-mail. Measurements and Main Results: There were 495 respondents with complete data. When respondents were queried about their musculoskeletal symptoms in the past 12 months, they reported a high prevalence of lower back (75.6%) and neck (72.9%) pain and a slightly lower prevalence of shoulder (66.6%), upper back (61.6%), and wrist/hand (60.9%) pain. Many respondents believed that performing surgery caused or worsened the pain, ranging from 76.3% to 82.7% in these five anatomic regions. Women are at an approximately twofold risk of pain, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of 1.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.2; p = .02) in the lower back region, OR 2.6(95% CI, 1.4-4.8; p = .002) in the upper back, and OR 2.9 (95% CI, 1.8-4.6; p = .001) in the wrist/hand region. Conclusion: Musculoskeletal symptoms are highly prevalent among gynecologic surgeons. Female sex is associated with approximately twofold risk of reported pain in commonly assessed anatomic regions. (C) 2013 AAGL. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available