SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.37 issue2Hepatocellular carcinoma: A real-life experience in a specialized center in Bogotá, ColombiaIncidence and characterization of colorectal adenomas in the area of influence of a specialized institution author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Revista colombiana de Gastroenterología

Print version ISSN 0120-9957On-line version ISSN 2500-7440

Rev. colomb. Gastroenterol. vol.37 no.2 Bogotá Jan./June 2022  Epub Aug 23, 2022

https://doi.org/10.22516/25007440.829 

Original article

Ergonomics in digestive endoscopy: Prevalence, types of musculoskeletal disorders, and risk factors in endoscopists in Colombia

Camilo Blanco-Avellaneda1  * 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1506-9225

Robin German Prieto-Ortiz2 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7605-760X

Ricardo Aníbal Cepeda-Vásquez3 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3853-955X

José Bareño-Silva4 
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2552-3660

Carlos Arturo González-Salazar5 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9148-4247

Lázaro Antonio Arango6 
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5197-2326

Nairo Javier Senejoa-Nuñez7 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9785-8534

1 Master’s in education. Specialist in Gastrointestinal Surgery and Endoscopy. Medical Manager, Unidad de Videoendoscopia del Restrepo Ltda. Bogotá, Colombia.

2 Gastroenterologist, specialist in General Surgery, specialist in Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy. Centro de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CEHYD), Central Police Hospital (HOCEN). Bogotá, Colombia.

3 Internist, Gastroenterologist, Clínica Pediátrica y Clínica del Country. Gastroenterologist. Bogotá, Colombia.

4 Physician, MSc. Epidemiology. Research professor, Universidad CES. Medellín, Colombia

5 General Surgery, Clínica Universitaria Colombia, gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy. Gastroenterologist, Clínica Reina Sofía, Gastroenterology Unit Coordinator. Bogotá, Colombia.

6 Clinical Surgical Gastroenterologist, MD, FASGE. Head of Clinical-Surgical Gastroenterology and Advanced Endoscopy. Universidad de Caldas, Unión de Cirujanos S. A. S. Oncólogos de Occidente S. A. S. Manizales, Colombia

7 Coloproctologist, Universidad Militar Central. Bogotá, Colombia.


Abstract

Introduction:

The practice of digestive endoscopy is a physically demanding activity, with musculoskeletal disorders present in 39 % to 89 % of endoscopists, associated with “excessive use” maneuvers. Due to a lack of knowledge of this problem in endoscopists in Colombia, the main objective is to determine the prevalence, types, and risk factors of musculoskeletal disorders in specialists and graduate students. The secondary objective is to identify the occupational impact, treatments used, and importance of prevention and education in ergonomics.

Materials and methods:

Analytical cross-sectional observational study. Electronic survey methodology, open from June 1 to 30, 2021. Purposive sampling of 450 endoscopists from four scientific associations and eleven graduate programs, including 50 questions in six groups according to the objectives. We validated 203 responses, with 131 confirmations of musculoskeletal disorders, the group on which the analysis was performed.

Results:

Global prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders of 64.5 % and prevalence in graduate students of 58.6 %. There was more significant involvement of the upper limbs (right shoulder, left thumb, right elbow), followed by lower back, neck, knees, and hips. Graduate students reported pain in the right hand/fingers (right thumb) and the lower back. There was no significant difference due to work factors, but there was a tendency for more reports when increasing the volume of procedures and years of professional practice. The labor impact showed 78 % absenteeism. The most used treatments were medication, physiotherapy, and rest; 93.8 % had not received ergonomic education. However, there is a positive perception (74.1 % to 90.9 %) of receiving formal training.

Discussion:

The prevalence reflected the health and safety problem for the endoscopist. Demographic risk factors plus those of the endoscopic practice give rise to an individualized risk framework that enables endoscopists to understand learning and training as a way to prevent musculoskeletal disorders in themselves and their work team.

Keywords: Ergonomics; endoscopy; injuries; musculoskeletal; occupational health

Resumen

Introducción:

la práctica de la endoscopia digestiva es una actividad físicamente exigente, con trastornos musculoesqueléticos presentes en el 39 % a 89 %, asociados con maniobras de “uso excesivo”. Debido al desconocimiento de este problema en endoscopistas de Colombia, el objetivo principal fue determinar la prevalencia, tipos y factores de riesgo del trastorno musculoesquelético en especialistas y estudiantes de posgrado. El objetivo secundario fue identificar el impacto laboral, los tratamientos utilizados y la importancia atribuida a la prevención y educación en ergonomía.

Metodología:

estudio observacional de corte transversal analítico. Metodología de encuesta electrónica, abierta del 1 al 30 de junio de 2021. Muestreo intencionado a 450 endoscopistas de 4 asociaciones científicas y 11 programas de posgrado, en el que se incluyeron 50 preguntas en 6 grupos según los objetivos. Se validaron 203 respuestas, con 131 confirmaciones de trastornos musculoesqueléticos, grupo al cual se le realizó el análisis.

Resultados:

prevalencia global de trastornos musculoesqueléticos de 64,5 % y prevalencia en estudiantes de posgrado de 58,6 %. Hubo mayor afectación de miembros superiores (hombro derecho, pulgar izquierdo, codo derecho); luego, en la espalda baja y cuello; y en las rodillas y caderas. En estudiantes de posgrado se registró dolor en la mano-dedos derechos (pulgar derecho) y en la espalda baja. No hubo diferencia significativa por aspectos laborales, pero hubo tendencia a un mayor reporte al aumentar el volumen de procedimientos y años de práctica profesional. El impacto laboral mostró 78 % de ausentismo laboral. Los tratamientos más empleados fueron medicamentos, fisioterapia y reposo. El 93,8 % no había recibido capacitación ergonómica y hay percepción positiva (74,1 % a 90,9 %) de recibir una didáctica formal.

Discusión:

la prevalencia evidenció el problema de salud y seguridad para el endoscopista. Los factores de riesgo demográficos más los propios de la práctica endoscópica generan un marco de riesgo individualizado que le permite al endoscopista entender el aprendizaje y la capacitación para prevenir trastornos musculoesqueléticos en sí mismo y su equipo de trabajo.

Palabras clave: Ergonomía; endoscopia; lesiones; musculoesqueléticas; salud ocupacional

Introduction

An upper GI endoscopy is a physically demanding activity1. The high prevalence of pain and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) associated with its practice (between 39% and 89% in practicing endoscopists)2 has been linked to “overuse” injury3 involving procedures where up to 40% of working time is spent4.

In turn, ergonomics, a discipline responsible for the design of workplaces and the analysis and adaptation of tools and tasks following the physiological, anatomical, and psychological characteristics of workers, studies 4 aspects of endoscopists’ interactions: Workspace, redesigns necessary to minimize risks, optimization of well-being beyond the physical well-being, and maximization of the overall performance of the service system1.

Musculoskeletal disorders result from frequent and repetitive maneuvers, uncomfortable postures, prolonged times5,6, and lack of breaks7. These situations are common to other professionals such as sonographers and laparoscopic surgeons8,9.

The anatomical sites most commonly affected by MSDs include the thumbs, wrists10-13, neck, lumbar region, shoulders6, and hands14. In graduate students of gastroenterology, pain in the thumbs (more often in the left one), hands3, right wrist, back, and neck15.

Risk factors for MSDs include gender, length of time in practice, improper positions, the volume of procedures4,7,11,12, and the performance of new procedures (endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD], enteroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound [EUS], endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP], and cholangioscopy) due to their longer duration and technical demands6,16,17.

Musculoskeletal disorders translate into duplication of occupational injury risk, affecting professional performance, usual work routine, and meeting work goals18.

The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence, location, types of MSDs, and risk factors in endoscopists (including graduate students) in Colombia. The secondary objectives included identifying the occupational impact of MSDs and the treatments used. Additionally, determining the importance attributed by respondents to educational processes in ergonomics.

Materials and methods

Analytical cross-sectional observational study. Self-administered electronic survey methodology developed in Google Qualtrics including 50 questions on general demographics (age, gender, professional certification level, weight, height, dominance, glove size); Musculoskeletal disorders presence, types, and location (according to the Nordic musculoskeletal standardized questionnaire of pain, numbness, and discomfort in body areas); related risk factors (years of practice, number and type of procedures accumulated in the last 2 years and 2 months, general and specific working hours in the endoscopy room); occupational impact and types of treatment used; preventive ergonomic activities and education, and awareness of the importance of specific ergonomic training in endoscopy. According to the observations, the survey was adjusted on 2 occasions by 8 endoscopists, 2 graduate gastroenterology students, a physiotherapist, 2 nurses, and a medical equipment engineer for content and appearance validity verification.

The survey was conducted among a purposive sample of endoscopists from the following associations: Asociaciones Colombianas de Endoscopia Digestiva, Colombian Associations of Digestive Endoscopy (ACED, by its abbreviation in Spanish); Gastroenterología, Colombian Gastroenterology Association (ACG, by its abbreviation in Spanish); Coloproctología, Colombian Association of Coloproctology (ACCP, by its abbreviation in Spanish), and Cirugía, Colombian Association of Surgery (ACC, by its abbreviation in Spanish), sent to their electronic media and social networks to 240 members of the ACED, 420 of the ACG, 60 of the ACCP and 50 of the ACC. Also, the survey was sent to students from the 11 gastroenterology programs with an estimated number of 45.

After explaining its relevance and ensuring the anonymity of the responses, the survey remained open from June 1 to June 30, 2021. Informed consent was stated as implicit in answering the survey. In addition, a participation incentive was granted through educational and financial support allocated among participants on July 5, 2021. The ACED ethics committee approved this study.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for demographic characteristics, with means and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables and proportion for discrete variables. In addition, the Chi-square test (χ2) and the Fisher’s exact test were used for risk factors identification associated with MSDs related to workloads, types of procedures performed, and gender based on the observed percentage and to compare the distributions of nominal data and the χ2 trend for ordinal data. A p < 0.05 was considered to determine significance. All analyses were performed with the free statistic JAMOVI software.

Results

Regardless of the endoscopists’ training and work environments, a 64.5% MSDs prevalence (in 131 of 203 validated responses) was found, while 35.5% (72) did not report MSDs. Twenty-nine graduate students responded, and 58.6% (17) reported MSDs (Figure 1).

Figura 1 Respondent flow chart. Authors’ elaboration. 

In the 131 positive univariate analysis, the groups with the highest frequency (with significant differences) were men vs. women (p < 0.001); specialists versus graduate students (p < 0.001); right vs. left hand dominance (p < 0.001); glove sizes M and L vs. S size (p < 0.001), and the use of Olympus technology vs. Fujifilm and Pentax (p < 0.001) (Table 1).

Table 1 General Characteristics of Respondents 

Characteristics n = 131 Fa (%) χ2 Test
Age by group (years) < 0.001
20-30 1 (0.76)
31-40 31 (23.6)
41-50 32 (24.2)
51-60 44 (33.6)
> 60 23 (17/5)
Gender < 0.001
Female 27 (20.6)
Male 104 (79.4)
Height < 0.001***
Mean (SD) 1.73 (0.09)
Median (IQR) 1.74 (1.68: 1.80)
Lower limit: Upper 1.50: 1.94
Weight* 0.039**
Mean (SD) 77.8 (13.0)
Median (IQR) 78 (68.5: 89)
Lower limit: Upper 50: 103
Handedness < 0.001
Right 122 (93.1)
Left 9 (6.9)
Glove size (n = 130) < 0.001
Small 24 (18.5)
Medium 62 (47.7)
Large 44 (33.8)
Level of Education < 0.001
Specialist 114 (87.0)
Fellow r1 5 (3.8)
Fellow r2 9 (6.9)
Fellow r3 3 (2.3)
Specialization < 0.001
Gastrointestinal surgeon and endoscopist 31 (23.7)
General surgeon 6 (4.6)
Proctologist 14 (10.7)
Gastroenterologist 80 (61.1)
Video endoscopy system < 0.001
Olympus 78 (59.5)
Fujifilm 46 (35.1)
Pentax 7 (5.3)

*No normal.

**Wilcoxon signed rank.

Test Student and test multinominal.

Fa: Absolute frequency; IQR: Interquartile range.

Since more than one MSD could occur per body segment, the 131 affected specialists reported 262 upper limbs injuries, over 85 reported neck-back injuries, and 41 reported lower limbs injuries. The most frequent complaints in the upper limb involved the right shoulder (n = 49, 48.7% of men, 60% of women), pain in the left thumb (n = 43, 60% of men, 50% of women). Although only 9 cases of carpal tunnel syndrome were recorded, it was the only type of MSD with a significant difference by gender (more frequent in men for both hands) (p < 0.011) (Table 2). In postgraduate students, there is a higher pain condition in the right hand-hand, especially the thumb.

Table 2 Upper Limb MSDs in Specialists by Gender, Age Group, and Dominance 

N = 131
Types of MSD Specialist n = 114 P-value
Male n = 92 Total Fa (%) Female n = 22 Total Fa (%)
Upper limb 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 > 60 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 > 60
Thumb involvement Both 5 1 6 (17.1) 1 1 2 (25) 0.843
Right 1 1 2 4 8 (22.9) 1 1 2 (25)
Left Total 1 2 5 10 3 21 (60) 1 1 2 4 (50)
1 3 6 17 8 0 2 3 2 1
Hand or finger pain Both 1 7 2 10 (41.7) 2 2 1 5 (41.7) 0.424
Right 1 3 3 1 8 (33.3) 3 2 6 (50.0)
Left 1 3 2 6 ( 25.0) 1 1 1 (8.3)
Total 0 1 5 13 5 0 3 5 4 0
Hand-arm numbness Both 2 4 3 9 (56.3) 1 1 (14.3) 0.095
Right 1 1 1 1 4 (25) 1 3 1 5 (71.4)
Left 1 2 3 ( 18.8) 1 1 (14.3)
Total 0 1 3 6 6 0 1 4 2 0
Carpal tunnel syndrome Both 1 3 1 5 (71.4) 0 0.011
Right 0 1 1 2 (100)
Left 2 2 (28.6) 0
Total 0 0 1 5 1 0 1 0 1 0
De Quervain’s tenosynovitis Both 2 2 (20) 1 1 2 (40) 0.592
Right 6 1 7 (70) 3 3 (60)
Left 1 1 (10) 0
Total 0 0 0 9 1 0 1 1 3 0
Wrist pain Both 1 3 3 7 (33.3) 1 2 3 (30) 0.576
Right 2 3 3 1 9 (42.9) 3 2 1 6 (60)
Left 1 1 2 1 5 (23.8) 1 1 (10)
Total 1 4 6 8 2 0 3 4 3
Elbow pain Both 1 5 1 7 (22.6) 1 1 2 (28.6) 0.943
Right 1 6 5 2 14 (45.2) 3 3 (42.9)
Left 5 3 2 10 (32.3) 1 1 2 (28.6)
Total 0 1 12 13 5 0 2 4 1 0
Shoulder pain Both 2 7 3 12 (30.8) 1 1 (10) 0.404
Right 1 4 10 4 19 (48.7) 4 1 1 6 (60)
Left 2 2 4 8 (20.5) 2 1 3 (30)
Total 0 1 8 19 11 0 0 7 2 1
Total 2 11 41 90 39 0 13 28 18 2

Neck and back MSDs in specialists mainly involve the lower back (n = 21.95% of men) and neck (n = 19.79% of men, 21% of women). There were no significant differences by gender in both groups (p 0.058 in specialists and p 0.076 in graduate students) (p < 0.05) (Table 3). The most common involvement in postgraduate students was in the upper back (n = 7).

Table 3 Neck and Back MSDs in Specialists by Gender and Age Group 

N = 131
Types of MSD Specialist n = 114
Male n = 92 Total Fa (%) Female n = 22 Total Fa (%) P-value
Upper limb 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 > 60 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 > 60
Neck and back
Neck pain Yes 1 5 5 4 15 (20.8) 1 1 1 1 4 (25) 0.058
No
Neck pain, upper back pain Yes 1 1 4 6 (8.3) 1 3 2 6 (37.5)
No
Neck pain, upper back pain, lower back pain Yes 1 5 4 10 (13.9) 1 1 (6.3)
No
Neck pain, lower back pain Yes 1 1 3 1 6 (8.3) 1 1 (6.3)
No
Upper back pain Yes 1 4 3 1 9 (12.5) 1 1 (6.3)
No
Upper back pain, lower back pain Yes 3 1 2 6 (8.3) 2 2 (12.5)
No
Lower back pain Yes 1 4 7 4 4 20 (27.8) 1 1 (6.3)
No
Total 1 7 22 22 20 0 4 6 5 1

Lower limb musculoskeletal disorders in specialists occurred primarily in the hips (n = 15, 60% with bilateral involvement), knee pain (n = 15. 40% in the right, 26.7% bilateral). No significant difference was found by gender. In addition, no illness was reported in graduate students (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Musculoskeletal disorders in lower limbs in specialists by gender. Authors’ elaboration. 

Absenteeism or work disability was reported in 89 specialists; 24.9% reduced the number of procedures and working hours. However, 14.6% (7 men and 6 women) had to discontinue specific endoscopic procedures associated with MSDs, which was significantly higher in female endoscopists (33.3% vs. 8.4%; p < 0.004). In addition, two male graduate students had to suspend specific procedures (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Occupational impact of MSDs in specialists and graduate students according to gender. Esp.: Specialists; PG: Graduate students; ♂: Male; ♀: Female. Authors’ elaboration. 

The most frequently used treatments for MSDs were medication (usually anti-inflammatory drugs), physiotherapy and rest, carpal tunnel splint to a lesser degree, steroid injections, and surgery. There were no significant differences by gender in any treatment. Fifteen specialists and 2 postgraduate students decided not to opt for any treatment (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Treatment modalities for MSDs in specialists and graduate students according to gender. Esp.: Specialists; PG: Graduate students; ♂: Male; ♀: Female. Authors’ elaboration. 

In terms of risk factors, the most affected patients by MSDs (n = 54, including both genders) reported more than 20 years of professional practice (with a higher significant frequency in men from the 4-10 years of work practice group; p < 0.029) (Table 4). By age group, there was greater involvement of men between 51-60 years who fulfilled weekly working days between 24-48 hours and 49-60 hours. In addition, there was significant involvement in 34 endoscopists when working in the endoscopy room was less than 24 hours per week (Tables 2 and 4).

Table 4 Characteristics of Cumulative and Recent Endoscopic Exercise in Male and Female Specialists and Postgraduate Students with MSDs 

Characteristics of the endoscopic practice Specialists Postgraduate students
Years of practice Male n = 92 Total Fa (%) Female n = 22 Total Fa (%) Valor p Male n = 12 Total Fa (%) Female n = 5 Total Fa (%) P-value
Accumulated years of endoscopic practice < 3 1 (1.1) 0 11 (91.7) 5 (100) 0.50611
< 4 5 (5.4) 2 (9.1) 0 0
4-10 13 (14.1) 8 (36.4) 0.029 0 0
10-20 24 (26.1) 8 (36.4) 0 0
> 20 49 (53.3) 4 (18.2) 1 (8.3) 0
Two-year cumulative procedures
No. endoscopic procedures accumulated in the last 2 years (gastroscopy, colonoscopy, and basic interventional procedures) < 200 4 (4.4) 2 (9.5) 2 (16.7) 1 (20) 0.487
201-500 6 (6.7) 3 (14.3) 3 (25) 3 (60)
501-1000 42 (47.7) 7 (33.3) 0.437 6 (50) 1 (20)
> 1000 38 (42.2) 9 (42.9) 1 (8.3) 0
No. endoscopic procedures accumulated in the last 2 years (advanced interventionism (ERCP, EUS-FNA, enteroscopy, stent]) < 200 31 (54.4) 9 (75) Un-known
201-500 11 (19.3) 2 (16.7)
501-1000 12 (21.1) 1 (8.3) 0.523
> 1000 3 (5.3) 0
No. endoscopic procedures accumulated in the last 2 years (third space [DES, POEM, G-POEM, Z-POEM, D- POEM]) < 200 26 (92.9) 5 (100) 0.538 Un-known
201-500 2 (7.1) 0
No. endoscopic procedures accumulated in the last 2 years (under radiology) < 200 24 (51.1) 6 (60) 4 (57.1) 2 (66.7) 0.778
201-500 10 (21.3) 3 (30) 3 (42.9) 1 (33.3)
501-1000 10 (21.3) 1 (10) 0.664 0 0
> 1000 3 (6.4) 0 0 0
Cumulative procedures per week (averaged over 2 months)
No. endoscopic procedures per week (averaged over the last 2 months [gastroscopy, colonoscopy, and basic interventional procedures]) < 50 4 (4.5) 2 (9.5) 4 (36.4) 0 0.362
50 25 (28.1) 6 (28.6) 3 (27.3) 1 (20)
51-100 37 (41.6) 11 (52.4) 1 (9.10) 1 (20)
101-150 16 (18) 1 (4.8) 0.495 3 (27.3) 3 (60)
> 150 7 (7.9) 1 (4.8) 0 0
No. endoscopic procedures per week (averaged over the last 2 months [advanced interventionism]) < 50 4 (9.3) 0 3 (42.9) 0 0.180
50 29 (67.4) 8 (100) 1 (14.3) 1 (100)
51-100 4 (9.3) 0 0.464 3 (42.0) 0
101-150 5 (11.60) 0 0 0
> 150 1 (2.3)
No. endoscopic procedures per week (averaged over the last 2 months [third space interventionism]) < 50 2 (10) 0 5 (83.3) 0 Un-known
50 17 (85) 2 (100) 0.841 1 (16.7) 0
51-100 1 (5) 0 0 0
Hours worked per week (2 months)
General work < 24 6 (7.2) 1 (4.8) 0 0 0.401
24-48 36 (43.4) 11 (52.4) 3 (25) 0
49-60 25 (30.1) 5 (23.8) 0.877 3 (25) 1 (20)
> 60 16 (19.3) 4 (19) 6 (50) 4 (80)
Work in the endoscopy room < 24 25 (29.1) 9 (40.9) 0.411 1 (10) 0 0.145
24-48 42 (48.8) 10 (45.5) 4 (40) 1 (20)
49-60 11 (12.8) 3 (13.6) 3 (30) 0
> 60 8 (9.3) 0 2 (20) 4 (80)

Injury reporting was higher when performing between 50 and 100 basic procedures, up to 50 advanced interventional procedures, or up to 50 third-space interventional procedures in the last two months, and in the previous two years, more than 500 basic procedures, between 200 and 1000 advanced interventional procedures or between 200 and 1000 fluoroscopy-supported procedures (Table 4).

As for preventive measures, the study found that 96% of the specialists did not take intraprocedural breaks, while 62.9% paused between procedures. For training in ergonomics, 93.8% did not receive formal training, while 40% had self-taught training. Only 21% received didactic indications for ergonomic correction in the endoscopy room (Table 5).

Table 5 MSD Prevention Behaviors and Ergonomics Training in Male and Female Specialists and Postgraduate Students 

Specialists Postgraduate Students
Male n = 92 Total Fa (%) Female n = 22 Total Fa (%) Valor p Male n = 12 Total Fa (%) Female n = 5 Total Fa (%) P-value
Regular breaks
Endoscopic intraprocedures Yes 2 (3.8) 0 0.490 0 1 (33.3) 0.107
No 50 (96.2) 12 (100) 7 (100) 2 (66.7)
Between endoscopic procedures Yes 45 (60.8) 13 (65) 0.732 5 (55.6) 2 (66.7) 0.735
No 29 (39.2) 7 (35) 4 (44.4) 1 (33.3)
Training in ergonomics
Formal didactics of a program Yes 4 (4.9) 2 (12.5) 0.245 1 (10) 0 0.464
No 78 (95.1) 14 (87.5) 9 (90) 5 (100)
Informal/self-taught didactics Yes 31 (36.5) 11 (55) 0.128 4 (40) 1 (20) 0.439
No 54 (63.5) 9 (45) 6 (60) 4 (80)
Didactics within the procedure room Yes 17 (20.2) 2 (12.5) 0.470 3 (25) 0 0.218
No 67 (979.8) 14 (87.5) 9 (75) 5 (100)

Regarding awareness of ergonomics in endoscopy, 74% of the specialists would feel comfortable changing the way endoscopy is performed if this helped prevent injuries. While 93.75 % of the postgraduate students strongly agreed on the importance of ergonomic training, 81.25 % expressed their willingness to receive formal training on the subject (Table 6).

Table 6 Awareness of Ergonomics Endoscopy Training in Male and Female Specialists and Postgraduate Students 

Specialists
Male n = 92 Total Fa (%) Female n = 22 Total Fa (%) P-value
For practicing specialists
- I am willing to change how I perform endoscopy if it helps me prevent endoscopy-related injuries. Strongly agree 62 (72.9) 12 (63.2) 0.366
Neither Agree nor Disagree 8 (9.4) 1 (5.3)
Strongly disagree 15 (17.6) 6 (31.6)
- I am willing to receive and provide training to the endoscopy room care team on the prevention of overuse-related injuries in endoscopy Strongly agree 63 (74.10) 12 (66.7) 0.098
Neither Agree nor Disagree 9 (10.6) 0
Strongly disagree 13 (15.3) 6 (33.3)
Postgraduate Students
Male n = 12 Total Fa (%) Female n = 5 Total Fa (%) P-value
For postgraduate students-fellows
Ergonomic training during specialization is important Strongly agree 10 (90.9) 5 (100) 0.486
Neither Agree nor Disagree 0 0
Strongly disagree 1 (9.1) 0
I am willing to educate myself on what can help me prevent an injury related to performing endoscopies Strongly agree 9 (81.8) 4 (80) 0.211
Neither Agree nor Disagree 0 0
Strongly disagree 2 (18.2) 0
I would like to receive formal didactic training on how to prevent overuse injuries in endoscopy Strongly agree 10 (90.9) 4 (80) 0.541
Neither Agree nor Disagree 1 (9.1) 1 (20)
Strongly disagree 0 0
I receive training in the procedure room on how to prevent endoscopy-related injuries Strongly agree 3 (27.3) 2 (40) 0.872
Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 (45.5) 2 (40)
Strongly disagree 3 (27.3) 1 (20)

Discussion

As a primary objective, an overall prevalence of 65.2% of MSDs was found in 203 specialists and postgraduate students in this representative sample of 45% from the estimated national population of 450 endoscopists as of June 2021, an intermediate figure compared to publications reporting 39% and 89%2, similar to a study in Canada with a prevalence of 67% in ERCP endoscopists19, and a European survey with a majority of 69.6 %13.

The types of MSD reported included pain, musculo-cartilaginous, and joint discomfort in different segments of the upper limbs (less frequently in the neck, upper and lower back, and lower limbs), corresponding to areas that perform internal and external rotations (right shoulder, back, neck), flexion and extension (left thumb, neck, hips); torsion (wrists, elbows, hands, back); grasp (right thumb, right-hand fingers). Moreover, specific lesions of Quervain’s tenosynovitis and carpal tunnel syndrome. This is consistent with reports in which its presence is associated with unsuitable endoscope design10-13. Other publications2,13,14,16 confirm a greater involvement of the upper limbs, followed by neck-back and, in smaller numbers, lower limbs. In a survey on injuries during colonoscopies procedures, there was a higher frequency of injuries to the lumbar region (35.2%), neck (35.2%), and left thumb (33.9%)20.

Postgraduate students reported increased involvement of the right hand and fingers (especially the right thumb). That report is inconsistent with a publication describing greater involvement of the left thumb3. In our students, it can be attributed to excessive gripping forces with biopsy forceps and other accessories at the beginning of their training.

Musculoskeletal disorders have been associated with risk factors for “overuse injury” (a term imported from sports) for repetitive movements and poor postures that generate repetitive stress; together with rotational and grasping forces, endoscopic support in uncomfortable positions, prolonged standing times, and the attempt to permanently relocate the visual field with the tip of the endoscope, they add to the cumulative trauma that worsens when associated with the large volume of procedures and number of years of practice4,21.

The significant differences in risk factors included: Gender (greater involvement in males; p < 0.001), unlike an extensive series of 1698 participants, in which there was no difference by gender22. Also, a lower frequency of MSDs was associated with small glove size (compared to medium and large sizes; p < 000.1), contrasting publications linking most of the injuries to small hand size22,23.

Other risk factors for women, including the combination of suboptimal endoscopic grip, lower muscle mass generating prehensile strength in fingers3,13,22,23, and endoscope inadequate ergonomic designs or procedure rooms24, were not the subjects of this study. Although, they should be considered for future research.

Working conditions were evaluated as risk factors as follows: workload in years (accumulated and recent), number and type of procedures performed, and working hours dedicated to endoscopy. This research only found a significant difference (p < 0.029) for the group of 4-10 years of practice, resulting in more frequent MSDs in men than in women. When compared by gender, the remaining workload factors did not show significant differences.

Reports showed a tendency towards increased reporting in males (groups 51-60 years and 41-50 years), practicing for more than 20 years, working 24-48 and 49-60 hours per week; in addition to a higher number of basic endoscopic procedures, advanced interventional procedures or under fluoroscopy, both accumulated and recent. In the procedure room, the number of reported MSDs increased when the working day was less than 24 hours per week. This suggests that detraining caused by less practice may represent a risk factor.

Therefore, these results could not validate Pawa et al.22, who reported higher odds of MSDs according to age (51.9 ± 12.3 years; p < 0.001), general gastrointestinal practice (p < 0.001), years of endoscopy practice (21.1 ± 12.0 years; p < 0.001), and the number of colonoscopies per week (between 11 and 30; p < 0.001) in univariate analysis, and, years of endoscopies practice and the number of hours performing endoscopies/week in a multivariate analysis.

The Japanese prevalence of 69% MSDs could not be confirmed in third space endoscopy (TSE) with MSDs (71% from the beginning of TSE and 48.8% with previous symptomatic worsening while performing echoendoscopes and ERCP)17,25, probably due to the small amount of TSE in the current sample. However, the higher demands of time and technique could show an increase in this group in the future since these diagnostic and therapeutic modalities are rapidly expanding.

The occupational impact of MSDs was significant: Seventy-eight percent of specialists reported absenteeism and work disability. Absenteeism was much higher than in other publications, with absence rates from work between 3% and 18.5%4,13,15,26, 17.3% in endoscopists performing extended diagnostic and therapeutic procedures6, and 9.7% in those performing colonoscopy procedures20. In terms of disability, this research found a significant difference with women discontinuing specific procedures more often (33.3% vs. 8.4%; p < 0.004). While disability accounted for only 2.2% of TSE research17.

The most commonly used reported treatments included respectively: Medications, physiotherapy, rest, carpal tunnel splint or wrist splint treatment, steroid injection, no treatment, and finally, surgery. These behaviors coincide with therapeutic choices in TSE17 and those performing colonoscopy20. In this study, many male endoscopists rejected any alternative, which may have influenced the high absenteeism rate.

Regarding the prevention of MSDs, 93.8% did not receive ergonomic training under formal didactics, a higher number than the 61.5% reported by Pawa et al.22. There was an intention of informal self-study training 40%, and 61.7% paused between procedures. These are inferior figures, possibly associated with the high prevalence found of MSDs. The positive perception of ergonomic training (74.1% in specialists, 90.9% in postgraduate students) enables a comprehensive preventive approach that must keep education and training as central elements1,27,28.

Therefore, a proposal such as the Core Curriculum for Ergonomics in Endoscopy published by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)1 defines basic knowledge, technical skills, and non-technical skills by teaching the performance of endoscopy and the safety of the endoscopist with an ergonomic approach, including leadership and awareness of risk factors within the work team, supported by teachers who bring a level of understanding of competence the aspects mentioned above29,30. Prevention may include individualized studies and physiotherapy plans24, ergonomic programs on colonoscopy simulators31, and endoscope redesign tailored to gender needs. However, the advent of the customized endoscope is ideal, albeit inapplicable for the near future32. For some, the tremendous physical load demanded requires endoscopists to receive a training plan similar to that of an athlete, including 5 steps: Knowledge and appropriate use of equipment, preparation “for the game,” teamwork, recovery, and reflection on the result, which keeps them physically “in the game”28.

This study has limitations inherent to the application of surveys, such as response bias (likely reason for suffering from MSDs that overestimates the prevalence) and recalls bias. No detailed inquiry was made about other MSDs before endoscopic practice or potentially harmful habits such as excessive use of cell phones, nor was there any inquiry about healthy practices. Postgraduate students’ participation was poor. Thus, their results are pretty limited, albeit interesting as a first approximation. Therefore, these results remained part of the report.

Study highlights: Despite the small sample size, it shows a response rate close to 50% of the estimated Colombian endoscopists population, constituting thus far the most extensive study of MSDs in endoscopy in the country. This study investigates various MSDs, professional practice characteristics, educational levels, and specific ergonomic training. Furthermore, it approaches impact according to gender.

Conclusions

The 65.2% MSDs prevalence rate evidences an occupational health problem for endoscopists. Consequently, further research and interventions in its prevention, diagnosis, and treatment should continue.

The type of MSD and the risk factors found are similar to those published (therefore, the pathophysiological mechanisms are shared). Hence, a common scenario can hasten the prevention and intervention measures already described.

Data from this study allows endoscopists’ placement in the different groups surveyed to bring them closer to their risk factors and, consequently, to their prevention.

Numerous aspects require ergonomic improvements in endoscopy practice. If awareness, training, and prevention on the subject fail in this area, discussing the topic of “safe endoscopy practices” would remain a mere oxymoron33.

References

1. Walsh CM, Qayed E, Aihara H, Anand GS, Byrne K, Chahal P, et al. Core curriculum for ergonomics in endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;93(6):1222-1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2021.01.023Links ]

2. Yung DE, Banfi T, Ciuti G, Arezzo A, Dario P, Koulaouzidis A. Musculoskeletal injuries in gastrointestinal endoscopists: a systematic review. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Oct;11(10):939-947. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2017.1356225Links ]

3. Austin K, Schoenberger H, Sesto M, Gaumnitz E, Teo Broman A, Saha S. Musculoskeletal Injuries Are Commonly Reported Among Gastroenterology Trainees: Results of a National Survey. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64(6):1439-1447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-5463-7Links ]

4. Ridtitid W, Coté GA, Leung W, Buschbacher R, Lynch S, Fogel EL, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for musculoskeletal injuries related to endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(2):294-302.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.036Links ]

5. Hildebrandt VH, Bongers PM, van Dijk FJ, Kemper HC, Dul J. Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire: description and basic qualities. Ergonomics. 2001;44(12):1038-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130110087437Links ]

6. Matsuzaki I, Ebara T, Tsunemi M, Hatta Y, Yamamoto K, Baba A, et al. Effects of endoscopy-related procedure time on musculoskeletal disorders in Japanese endoscopists: a cross-sectional study. Endosc Int Open. 2021;9(5):E674-E683. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1352-3850Links ]

7. Shergill AK, Asundi KR, Barr A, Shah JN, Ryan JC, McQuaid KR, et al. Pinch force and forearm-muscle load during routine colonoscopy: a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(1):142-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.030Links ]

8. Smith AC, Wolf JG, Xie GY, Smith MD. Musculoskeletal pain in cardiac ultrasonographers: results of a random survey. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1997;10(4):357-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0894-7317(97)70073-7Links ]

9. van Det MJ, Meijerink WJ, Hoff C, Totté ER, Pierie JP. Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1279-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0148-xLinks ]

10. Buschbacher R. Overuse syndromes among endoscopists. Endoscopy. 1994;26(6):539-44. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1009030Links ]

11. Byun YH, Lee JH, Park MK, Song JH, Min BH, Chang DK, et al. Procedure-related musculoskeletal symptoms in gastrointestinal endoscopists in Korea. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14(27):4359-64. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.14.4359Links ]

12. Hansel SL, Crowell MD, Pardi DS, Bouras EP, DiBaise JK. Prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal injury among endoscopists: a controlled pilot study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;43(5):399-404. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0b013e31817b0124Links ]

13. Morais R, Vilas-Boas F, Pereira P, Lopes P, Simões C, Dantas E, et al. Prevalence, risk factors and global impact of musculoskeletal injuries among endoscopists: a nationwide European study. Endosc Int Open. 2020;8(4):E470-E480. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1038-4343Links ]

14. Kamani L, Kalwar H. Ergonomic Injuries in Endoscopists and Their Risk Factors. Clin Endosc. 2021;54(3):356-362. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2020.200Links ]

15. Villa E, Attar B, Trick W, Kotwal V. Endoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries in gastroenterology fellows. Endosc Int Open. 2019;7(6):E808-E812. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0811-5985Links ]

16. Campbell EV 3rd, Muniraj T, Aslanian HR, Laine L, Jamidar P. Musculoskeletal Pain Symptoms and Injuries Among Endoscopists Who Perform ERCP. Dig Dis Sci. 2021;66(1):56-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-020-06163-zLinks ]

17. Han S, Hammad HT, Wagh MS. High prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and injuries in third space endoscopists: an international multicenter survey. Endosc Int Open. 2020;8(10):E1481-E1486. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1236-3379Links ]

18. Geraghty J, George R, Babbs C. A questionnaire study assessing overuse injuries in United Kingdom endoscopists and any effect from the introduction of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program on these injuries. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(5):1069-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.11.011Links ]

19. O’Sullivan S, Bridge G, Ponich T. Musculoskeletal injuries among ERCP endoscopists in Canada. Can J Gastroenterol. 2002;16(6):369-74. https://doi.org/10.1155/2002/523125Links ]

20. Al-Rifaie A, Gariballa M, Ghodeif A, Hodge S, Thoufeeq M, Donnelly M. Colonoscopy-related injury among colonoscopists: an international survey. Endosc Int Open. 2021;9(1):E102-E109. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1311-0561Links ]

21. Roos KG, Marshall SW. Definition and usage of the term “overuse injury” in the US high school and collegiate sport epidemiology literature: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2014;44(3):405-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0124-zLinks ]

22. Pawa S, Banerjee P, Kothari S, D’Souza SL, Martindale SL, Gaidos JKJ, et al. Are All Endoscopy-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries Created Equal? Results of a National Gender-Based Survey. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(3):530-538. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001136Links ]

23. Cohen DL, Naik JR, Tamariz LJ, Madanick RD. The perception of gastroenterology fellows towards the relationship between hand size and endoscopic training. Dig Dis Sci. 2008;53(7):1902-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-007-0069-xLinks ]

24. Markwell SA, Garman KS, Vance IL, Patel A, Teitelman M. Individualized ergonomic wellness approach for the practicing gastroenterologist (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Aug;94(2):248-259.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2021.01.045Links ]

25. Nabi Z, Nageshwar Reddy D, Ramchandani M. Recent Advances in Third-Space Endoscopy. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2018;14(4):224-232. [ Links ]

26. Kuwabara T, Urabe Y, Hiyama T, Tanaka S, Shimomura T, Oko S, et al. Prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal pain in Japanese gastrointestinal endoscopists: a controlled study. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(11):1488-93. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v17.i11.1488Links ]

27. Shergill AK, McQuaid KR, Rempel D. Ergonomics and GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70(1):145-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.12.235Links ]

28. Singla M, Kwok RM, Deriban G, Young PE. Training the Endo-Athlete: An Update in Ergonomics in Endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(7):1003-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.019Links ]

29. Stoner PL, Yang DJ, Rostom A, Draganov PV. Ergonomics in endoscopy: Can you teach an old dog new tricks? Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(2):456-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.02.010Links ]

30. ASGE Technology Committee, Pedrosa MC, Farraye FA, Shergill AK, Banerjee S, Desilets D, Diehl DL, Kaul V, Kwon RS, Mamula P, Rodriguez SA, Varadarajulu S, Song LM, Tierney WM. Minimizing occupational hazards in endoscopy: personal protective equipment, radiation safety, and ergonomics. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(2):227-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.071Links ]

31. Khan R, Scaffidi MA, Satchwell J, Gimpaya N, Lee W, Genis S, et al. Impact of a simulation-based ergonomics training curriculum on work-related musculoskeletal injury risk in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(5):1070-1080.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.3754Links ]

32. Shergill A, Harris Adamson C. Failure of an engineered sytem: The gastrointestinal endoscope. Tech Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;21(3):116-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tgie.2019.02.001Links ]

33. Shergill AK, McQuaid KR. Ergonomic endoscopy: An oxymoron or realistic goal? Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90(6):966-970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.023Links ]

Citation: Blanco-Avellaneda C, Prieto-Ortiz RG, Cepeda-Vásquez RA, Bareño-Silva J, González-Salazar CA, Arango LA, Senejoa-Nuñez NJ. Ergonomics in digestive endoscopy: Prevalence, types of musculoskeletal disorders, and risk factors in endoscopists in Colombia. Rev Colomb Gastroenterol. 2022;37(2):174-186. https://doi.org/10.22516/25007440.829

Funding The authors funded the study

Received: September 20, 2021; Accepted: November 05, 2021

*Correspondence: Camilo Blanco Avellaneda. camiloblancoa@gmail.com

Conflicts of Interest

The authors of this study declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License