Neurobionplus
Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    
Login 

Users Online: 1276 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 


 
 Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 758-762
Surgeon's neck posture during spine surgeries: “The unrecognised potential occupational hazard”


Mallika Spine Centre, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication7-Oct-2019
 

   Abstract 

Study Design: Observational study. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the surgeon's neck postures while performing lumbar spinal surgeries. Overview of Literature: Lumbar spinal surgeries are on rising trend, and with increase in number of procedures, the average time spent by a spine surgeon performing surgical procedures is also increasing. The effect of operating posture on the surgeon's neck is largely unknown. From the studies conducted on usage of smartphones, abnormal neck postures, especially the forward head posture (FHP), were found to adversely affect the cervical spine of individuals. The present study analyzes the neck position of spine surgeons during lumbar spine surgeries. Methodology: Sixty video recordings (25 open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions [TLIFs] and 35 lumbar decompression [LD] procedures – 15 with headlight and 20 with operating microscope) of surgeries performed by three spine surgeons of different heights were analyzed. Running videos of the surgeries were recorded concentrating on the surgeons with reflective markers taped to their surface landmarks corresponding to C7 spinous process, tragus of the ear, and outer canthus of the eye. Video recordings were standardized by a fixed video recorder in the same operating theater. Snapshots from the video were obtained whenever the surgeon changes the position. Head flexion angle (HFA), neck flexion angle (NFA), and cervical angle (CA) were measured and analyzed. Results: During TLIF, HFA and NFA were significantly higher during the phases of decompression and fusion (P < 0.05). The average CA of all surgeons was lower, thereby adversely affecting the cervical spine (20.15° ± 5.05°). During LD, CA showed significant difference between usage of microscope and headlight (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Surgeon's FHP is frequently caused by a compromise between the need to perform surgery with hands, without elevating the arms, and simultaneous control of gaze at surgical field. The usage of microscope was found to reduce the stress on neck while performing surgery.

Keywords: Ergonomics, forward head posture, postural analysis, spine surgeon, surgeon's neck

How to cite this article:
Naresh-Babu J, Arun-Kumar V, Raju D G. Surgeon's neck posture during spine surgeries: “The unrecognised potential occupational hazard”. Indian J Orthop 2019;53:758-62

How to cite this URL:
Naresh-Babu J, Arun-Kumar V, Raju D G. Surgeon's neck posture during spine surgeries: “The unrecognised potential occupational hazard”. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 20];53:758-62. Available from: http://www.ijoonline.com/text.asp?2019/53/6/758/268655



   Introduction Top


Lumbar spine surgeries are on a rising trend in the past few decades, the reasons being many from advancement of instrumentation technologies to experience of the surgeons. As a reason, the average time spent by a spine surgeon performing surgical procedures is also increasing. Since intraoperative position of one's own neck is not regularly assessed or observed by the spine surgeons, the effect of operating posture on the surgeon's neck is largely unknown.

Good posture is defined by the Posture Committee of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons as “the state of muscular and skeletal balance which protects the supporting structures of the body against injury or progressive deformity, irrespective of the position (erect, lying, squatting, or stooping) in which these structures are working or resting”.[1] Correct upright posture is defined as when ears are aligned with the shoulders in the same line, leading to least strain on the back when in standing position.[2] To maintain such a good posture, one must be always aware of the position in which he/she is constantly working and correct it on regular basis.

Postural neck pain can be caused by several factors, including sleeping with head elevated too high, overuse of computers or cell phones, and lack of back muscle strength.[3] The common neck-related syndromes are straight neck syndrome and forward head posture (FHP). Loss of natural cervical curve is termed as straight neck syndrome, which is mainly asymptomatic but when neglected can lead to pain-associated FHP. According to Hansraj,[4] weight load on the spine dramatically increases when there is an increase in neck flexion ranging from 10 lbs at 0° to 60 lbs at 60°. It is around 10–12 lbs at neutral position and 27, 40, 49, and 60 lbs at 15°, 30°, 45°, and 60°, respectively. According to Szeto et al.,[5] when the head is in forward flexion posture for a longer time period, it results in loss of cervical lordosis and potential increase in thoracic kyphosis. FHP combined with increased biodynamic stress of the spine leads to musculoskeletal problems, such as neck pain and headache.[6] There have been reports where temporomandibular dysfunction is also associated with FHP.[7] Several studies have also come up examining the influence of head weight on flexion head posture.[8],[9]

Postural analysis has been extensively studied over the last decade, with many development methods gaining importance. The latest reliable developmental methods used advanced technological systems such as computerized photographic systems[10] and X-ray scannograms.[11],[12] Methods to evaluate spinal posture have been categorized basically into four groups:

  1. Radiography[13] – Reliable and gold standard but involves radiation hazards
  2. Three dimensional motion analysis[14] – Reliable but requires costly equipment
  3. Video raster stereography analysis[15] – Reliable but did not pass validity studies
  4. Photographic posture analysis[16] – Basic objective observational measurement method using anatomical landmarks.


Reliability and clinical use of the photographic analysis have been described in the literature based on its accuracy.[10],[17] According to van Niekerk,[18] photographs are reliable indicators of the spine when compared to radiographs using LODOX system.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the effect of FHP on the neck of individuals performing spinal surgeries.


   Methodology Top


An observational study of 60 videos performed by three spine surgeons (S1, S2, and S3) was conducted at our institute. Heights of the surgeons were calculated using photogrammetry and Photographic Posture Analysis Method by single research analyst. Preoperatively, reflective markers were taped on the side of the surgeons [Figure 1], in the following surface landmarks:
Figure 1: Reflective markers taped on side of the surgeon

Click here to view


  1. C7 spinous process
  2. Tragus of the ear
  3. Outer canthus of the eye.


Reflective markers used were Styrofoam balls of approximately 20-mm diameter. Running video of the surgery was recorded using NIKON Powershot D3100 placed on a Manfrotto tripod at an angle perpendicular to the operative field concentrating on the performing surgeon primarily. The distance between the field and the camera was set at 2.5 metres. Height of the tripod was adjusted so as to center the head and neck of the surgeon in the field. A precalibrated board was placed in the field of view to allow referencing vertical and horizontal axes from the photograph. Postoperatively, all the videos involving three surgeons were analyzed by single research analyst. The total number of operative videos analyzed was 60 which included 35 lumbar decompression (LD) procedures and 25 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs). Duration of the whole surgery of TLIF was divided into different phases as exposure, fixation, decompression, fusion, and closure. Videos of LD performed were grouped into Group H – surgery performed with usage of headlight and Group M – surgery performed under microscope. Snapshots of the video were taken whenever the surgeon changes his/her position, and using Surgimap (Spine Software, version 2.2.9.9.4, New York, NY, USA), all images were calibrated. The angles evaluated in the study are described below [Figure 2]a,[Figure 2]b, [Figure 2]c:
Figure 2: Snapshot pictures showing head flexion angle (a), neck flexion angle (b), and cervical angle (c) of operating surgeons

Click here to view


  1. Head flexion angle (HFA) is the angle between a line connecting C7 to tragus of the ear and tragus to outer canthus[19]
  2. Neck flexion angle (NFA) is defined as the angle subtended between vector pointing from C7 to tragus (which corresponds to occipital-cervical joint) and a global vertical line[20]
  3. Cervical angle (CA) has been one of the reliable indicators to assess FHP and is defined as the angle formed at the intersection of the horizontal line through the spinous process and tragus of the ear.[21]



   Results Top


Analysis of posture during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions

The average duration of surgery for single-level TLIF is 110.63 min (range 71.77–148.36 min). The average distance between surgeon's center of ear and center of shoulder during the entire surgery is 135.5 mm (range 97.82–190.81 mm) [Table 1].
Table 1: Results showing head flexion angle, neck flexion angle, and cervical angle of operating surgeons during different phases of lumbar fixation and fusion

Click here to view


HFA of all surgeons was observed to be near-normal (S1 – 116.5° ± 6.4°, S2 – 122° ± 5.9°, S3 – 130.6° ± 5.4°) during exposure, abnormally increased (S1 – 145° ± 3.4°, S2 – 143.8° ± 2.9°, S3 – 149.7° ± 4.1°) during decompression, and reduced back to near-normal range (S1 – 120.3° ± 3.0°, S2 – 126.6° ± 2.5°, S3 – 132.3° ± 3.4°) during wound closure.

NFA of the surgeons was also observed to follow a similar trend as of HFA, which showed to be abnormal during decompression (S1 – 76.7 ± 4.2, S2 – 80.2 ± 4.1, and S3 – 98.7 ± 4.5) and fusion (S1 – 68.4 ± 5.3, S2 – 79.7 ± 3.3, S3 – 93.6 ± 4.2).

Decompression and fusion were observed to be the most stressful phases affecting surgeon's neck during TLIF. HFA and NFA were significantly higher during the phases of decompression and fusion when compared with exposure and closure (P < 0.05). The average CA of all surgeons was significantly lower in all phases of the entire surgery, thereby adversely affecting the cervical spine (20.15° ± 5.05°).

Analysis of posture during decompression

HFA and NFA did not alter much in the headlight and microscope groups, while CA showed significant difference (P < 0.001). With the usage of microscope, CA was observed to be near-normal for the entire duration [Table 2].
Table 2: Results of lumbar discectomy performed with headlight and microscope

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Neck-related syndromes are rapidly increasing as the lifestyle of majority of the population involves looking down using smartphones and longer duration of working hours in front of a computer. FHP being a trending condition affecting the younger generation due to usage of technologies such as smartphones, this can also affect the spine surgeons to a particular level. The number of spine surgeries performed has increased markedly in the past decade due to many innovations in the specialty field.[22],[23]

If prolonged work is performed with neck in flexion, pain associated with fatigue is the common symptom. Main load on the neck musculature is transferred to surrounding ligaments and capsules of cervical facet joints when head is flexed forward to extreme of its range of motion. Such postures can lead to pain within 15 min, and there is a usual tendency to normalize the posture within 15–60 min due to intense pain. Pressure exerted by head and neck on the disc between the seventh cervical vertebra and the first thoracic vertebra is increased by 3.6 times when the cervical spine is forward flexed maximally.[24]

Dangers of FHP can be described as a “DOMINO EFFECT” since one effect sets of a chain of similar events, leading to a cumulative result, i.e.,

  1. Head moves forward, thereby shifting the center of gravity
  2. As a primary compensatory mechanism, upper body drifts backward
  3. As a secondary compensation to upper body drift, both hips tilt forward.


Hence, FHP can not only cause neck pain but can also be a root cause of mid/lower back pain.

The relation of head to that of the neck can be determined by the following parameters: NFA and CA. According to Yoo,[25] NFA at 38.5° ± 6.02° increases muscle activity of the upper trapezius and splenius capitis muscles, when compared to cervical neutral position. In a series by Lee,[26] muscle fatigue levels of the right and left upper trapezius was highest at 50° and lowest at 30°. In our study, NFA was above 50° in all instances proving that muscle fatigue levels of trapezius is highest during both TLIF and LD.

Many studies stated that normal individuals have mean CA ranging between 40° and 55°.[27],[28] In the series by Ruivo et al.,[21] cases with FHP associated with neck pain had a CA <50°. Brink et al.[29] found smaller CA (<40°) to be the reason behind upper quadrant pain. In the present study, we observed the CA remained <25° for all the surgeons for the entire duration of the surgery, irrespective of the phase. Smaller the CA indicates more the FHP.

According to Kessel,[30] for every inch of FHP, there is an increase in weight of head on the spine by additional 10 pounds. In our study, the average FHP of operating surgeon has been 5.3 inch which amounts to >50 pounds of head weight on the cervical spine. Normally, the weight load of head on spine is 10–12 lbs where the neck flexion is at neutral position and center of the ear lies in the same line that of center of shoulder blades. In the series by Hansraj conducted on bone models, when the neck flexion increases to 60°, load becomes 60 lbs and from here on load could not be calculated since the modules were termed becoming unstable in higher flexion degrees. In the present study, load of head on the spine of surgeons has been consistently above 60 lbs during all the phases of surgery based on the findings of NFA.

Surgeon's FHP is frequently caused by a compromise between the need to perform surgery with hands, without elevating the arms and simultaneous control of gaze at surgical field. The phases showing maximum effect of FHP on the neck of the surgeon are decompression and interbody fusion, whereas exposure and closure of the wound are the least affected phases in the surgery. On an average, if a highly experienced surgeon (>10 years) performs five single-level interbody fusions per week, he/she is expected to be in the position of FHP for about 311.00 hours/year. When the same number of cases if being done by moderately experience surgeon (5 years), they are expected to be in the same abnormal position for about 484.29 hours/year and least experienced (<2 years) time duration would be 642.89 hours/year, which is highly significant when compared to that of the highly experienced spine surgeons. Furthermore, the usage of microscope was found to be beneficial by avoiding the abnormal neck posture angles when compared to the usage of headlight.

Consistent flexion of the spine has been associated with increased cervical compressive loading and reprobate response in the cervical connective tissues.[31],[32] The angle of neck flexion in a surgeon that is observed during performing spine surgery is causing a severe load on the surgeon's spine. To avoid excessive consistent pressure on the neck, we suggest changing the posture regularly after each phase for at least 10 s and further recommend spine surgeons to actively perform neck strengthening exercises on a daily basis, which will decrease the effect of FHP on surgeon's neck in the years to come.


   Conclusion Top


When the neck stays in such an abnormal position on a daily basis, there is a huge pressure on the surgeon's neck making it highly vulnerable for early degeneration. Usage of microscope was found to reduce the stress on neck while performing surgery. The data of this study creates an awareness among spine surgeons about occupational hazards and need for regular neck strengthening exercises.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Grimmer-Somers K, Milanese S, Louw Q. Measurement of cervical posture in the sagittal plane. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008;31:509-17.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Straus EW. The Upright Posture. In: Natanson M. (eds) Essays in Phenomenology. Springer, Dordrecht. 1966. doi: doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5403-3_10.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Edmondston SJ, Wallumrød ME, Macléid F, Kvamme LS, Joebges S, Brabham GC. Reliability of isometric muscle endurance tests in subjects with postural neck pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008;31:348-54.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hansraj KK. Assessment of stresses in the cervical spine caused by posture and position of the head. Surg Technol Int 2014;25:277-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Szeto GP, Straker L, Raine S. A field comparison of neck and shoulder postures in symptomatic and asymptomatic office workers. Appl Ergon 2002;33:75-84.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Pareja JA. Forward head posture and neck mobility in chronic tension-type headache: A blinded, controlled study. Cephalalgia 2006;26:314-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hanten WP, Lucio RM, Russell JL, Brunt D. Assessment of total head excursion and resting head posture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991;72:877-80.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Burgess-Limerick R, Plooy A, Ankrum DR. The effect of imposed and self-selected computer monitor height on posture and gaze angle. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 1998;13:584-92.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Sarig-Bahat H. Evidence for exercise therapy in mechanical neck disorders. Man Ther 2003;8:10-20.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Ferreira EA, Duarte M, Maldonado EP, Burke TN, Marques AP. Postural assessment software (PAS/SAPO): Validation and reliabiliy. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2010;65:675-81.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Wunderlich M, Rüther T, Essfeld D, Erren TC, Piekarski C, Leyk D, et al. A new approach to assess movements and isometric postures of spine and trunk at the workplace. Eur Spine J 2011;20:1393-402.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Brink Y, Louw Q, Grimmer-Somers K. The quality of evidence of psychometric properties of three-dimensional spinal posture-measuring instruments. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011;12:93.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Vedantam R, Lenke LG, Keeney JA, Bridwell KH. Comparison of standing sagittal spinal alignment in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:211-5.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Uritani D. Reliability of upper quadrant posture analysis using an ultrasound-based three-dimensional motion analyzer. J Phys Ther Sci 2013;25:1181-4.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
McEvoy MP, Grimmer K. Reliability of upright posture measurements in primary school children. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2005;6:35.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Nam SH, Son SM, Kwon JW, Lee NK. The intra-and inter-rater reliabilities of the forward head posture assessment of normal healthy subjects. J Phys Ther Sci 2013;25:737-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Fortin C, Feldman DE, Cheriet F, Labelle H. Clinical methods for quantifying body segment posture: A literature review. Disabil Rehabil 2011;33:367-83.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
van Niekerk SM, Louw Q, Vaughan C, Grimmer-Somers K, Schreve K. Photographic measurement of upper-body sitting posture of high school students: A reliability and validity study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008;9:113.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Burgess-Limerick R. The influence of computer monitor height on head and neck posture. Int J Ind Ergon 1999;23:171-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Young JG, Trudeau M, Odell D, Marinelli K, Dennerlein JT. Touch-screen tablet user configurations and case-supported tilt affect head and neck flexion angles. Work 2012;41:81-91.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Ruivo RM, Pezarat-Correia P, Carita AI. Cervical and shoulder postural assessment of adolescents between 15 and 17 years old and association with upper quadrant pain. Braz J Phys Ther 2014;18:364-71.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB. Spinal fusion in the United States: Analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:67-76.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Davis H. Increasing rates of cervical and lumbar spine surgery in the United States, 1979-1990. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19:1117-23.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Stellman JM, Editor. Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety. International Labor Organisation, Geneva; 1998. Available from: http://iloencyclopaedia.org/component/k2/17-6-musculoskeletal-system/neck. [Last accessed on 2019 Jul 15].  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Yoo CU. Electromyographic Activity of the Neck and Shoulder Muscles While Watching a DMB Phone with the Neck Flexed. Yonsei University, Dissertation of Master's Degree; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Lee S, Lee D, Park J. Effect of the cervical flexion angle during smart phone use on muscle fatigue of the cervical erector spinae and upper trapezius. J Phys Ther Sci 2015;27:1847-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Lee MY, Lee HY, Yong MS. Characteristics of cervical position sense in subjects with forward head posture. J Phys Ther Sci 2014;26:1741-3.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Lau HM, Chiu TT, Lam TH. Measurement of craniovertebral angle with electronic head posture instrument: Criterion validity. J Rehabil Res Dev 2010;47:911-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Brink Y, Crous LC, Louw QA, Grimmer-Somers K, Schreve K. The association between postural alignment and psychosocial factors to upper quadrant pain in high school students: A prospective study. Man Ther 2009;14:647-53.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Kessel L. The physiology of the joints. Volume 3. The trunk and the vertebral column. I. A. Kapandji, Paris. Second edition. 1974. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston. Br J Surg 1975;62:419.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Harms-Ringdahl K, Ekholm J, Schüldt K, Németh G, Arborelius UP. Load moments and myoelectric activity when the cervical spine is held in full flexion and extension. Ergonomics 1986;29:1539-52.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Twomey L, Taylor J. Flexion creep deformation and hysteresis in the lumbar vertebral column. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1982;7:116-22.  Back to cited text no. 32
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Viswanadha Arun-Kumar
Mallika Spine Centre, 12-12-30, Old Club Road, Kothapet, Guntur - 522 001, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_677_18

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methodology
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed150    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded41    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal