1.Review and Evaluation of Hand-Arm Coordinate Systems for Measuring Vibration Exposure, Biodynamic Responses, and Hand Forces.
Ren G DONG ; Erik W SINSEL ; Daniel E WELCOME ; Christopher WARREN ; Xueyan S XU ; Thomas W MCDOWELL ; John Z WU
Safety and Health at Work 2015;6(3):159-173
The hand coordinate systems for measuring vibration exposures and biodynamic responses have been standardized, but they are not actually used in many studies. This contradicts the purpose of the standardization. The objectives of this study were to identify the major sources of this problem, and to help define or identify better coordinate systems for the standardization. This study systematically reviewed the principles and definition methods, and evaluated typical hand coordinate systems. This study confirms that, as accelerometers remain the major technology for vibration measurement, it is reasonable to standardize two types of coordinate systems: a tool-based basicentric (BC) system and an anatomically based biodynamic (BD) system. However, these coordinate systems are not well defined in the current standard. Definition of the standard BC system is confusing, and it can be interpreted differently; as a result, it has been inconsistently applied in various standards and studies. The standard hand BD system is defined using the orientation of the third metacarpal bone. It is neither convenient nor defined based on important biological or biodynamic features. This explains why it is rarely used in practice. To resolve these inconsistencies and deficiencies, we proposed a revised method for defining the realistic handle BC system and an alternative method for defining the hand BD system. A fingertip-based BD system for measuring the principal grip force is also proposed based on an important feature of the grip force confirmed in this study.
Hand Strength
;
Hand*
;
Vibration*
2.Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States
Stephen SCHMIT ; Kamil MALSHY ; Alexander HOMER ; Borivoj GOLIJANIN ; Christopher TUCCI ; Rebecca ORTIZ ; Sari KHALEEL ; Elias HYAMS ; Dragan GOLIJANIN
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024;27(3):165-171
Purpose:
This study was performed to evaluate the association between mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and perioperative outcomes following nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era.
Methods:
All partial and radical nephrectomies between 2019 and 2021 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were evaluated. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes were compared between groups where MBP was performed vs. not, in both the MIS and open surgery (OS) cohorts. A propensity score matching technique was utilized within MIS cases to control for covariates. The chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance.
Results:
A total of 11,869 cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.Of these, 8,204 (69.1%; comprising 65.3% robotic and 34.7% laparoscopic) underwent MIS, while 3,655 (30.9%) underwent OS. The rate of MBP was higher in the MIS group (16.0% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001). Within the MIS group, MBP was associated with reduced rates of postoperative ileus (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.02), while other complications were comparable.Propensity score matching showed no association between MBP and postoperative ileus.However, a lower rate of 30-day readmission in the MBP group became statistically significant (4.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.01). Conversely, patients in the MBP group also demonstrated higher rates of pneumonia (1.29% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (0.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) after matching.
Conclusion
MBP practice prior to nephrectomy is infrequent in both OS and MIS cases, with minor differences in perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing MIS. Routine MBP should continue to be excluded from the standard of care for nephrectomy in the MIS era.
3.Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States
Stephen SCHMIT ; Kamil MALSHY ; Alexander HOMER ; Borivoj GOLIJANIN ; Christopher TUCCI ; Rebecca ORTIZ ; Sari KHALEEL ; Elias HYAMS ; Dragan GOLIJANIN
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024;27(3):165-171
Purpose:
This study was performed to evaluate the association between mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and perioperative outcomes following nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era.
Methods:
All partial and radical nephrectomies between 2019 and 2021 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were evaluated. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes were compared between groups where MBP was performed vs. not, in both the MIS and open surgery (OS) cohorts. A propensity score matching technique was utilized within MIS cases to control for covariates. The chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance.
Results:
A total of 11,869 cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.Of these, 8,204 (69.1%; comprising 65.3% robotic and 34.7% laparoscopic) underwent MIS, while 3,655 (30.9%) underwent OS. The rate of MBP was higher in the MIS group (16.0% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001). Within the MIS group, MBP was associated with reduced rates of postoperative ileus (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.02), while other complications were comparable.Propensity score matching showed no association between MBP and postoperative ileus.However, a lower rate of 30-day readmission in the MBP group became statistically significant (4.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.01). Conversely, patients in the MBP group also demonstrated higher rates of pneumonia (1.29% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (0.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) after matching.
Conclusion
MBP practice prior to nephrectomy is infrequent in both OS and MIS cases, with minor differences in perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing MIS. Routine MBP should continue to be excluded from the standard of care for nephrectomy in the MIS era.
4.Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States
Stephen SCHMIT ; Kamil MALSHY ; Alexander HOMER ; Borivoj GOLIJANIN ; Christopher TUCCI ; Rebecca ORTIZ ; Sari KHALEEL ; Elias HYAMS ; Dragan GOLIJANIN
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024;27(3):165-171
Purpose:
This study was performed to evaluate the association between mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and perioperative outcomes following nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era.
Methods:
All partial and radical nephrectomies between 2019 and 2021 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were evaluated. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes were compared between groups where MBP was performed vs. not, in both the MIS and open surgery (OS) cohorts. A propensity score matching technique was utilized within MIS cases to control for covariates. The chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance.
Results:
A total of 11,869 cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.Of these, 8,204 (69.1%; comprising 65.3% robotic and 34.7% laparoscopic) underwent MIS, while 3,655 (30.9%) underwent OS. The rate of MBP was higher in the MIS group (16.0% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001). Within the MIS group, MBP was associated with reduced rates of postoperative ileus (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.02), while other complications were comparable.Propensity score matching showed no association between MBP and postoperative ileus.However, a lower rate of 30-day readmission in the MBP group became statistically significant (4.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.01). Conversely, patients in the MBP group also demonstrated higher rates of pneumonia (1.29% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (0.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) after matching.
Conclusion
MBP practice prior to nephrectomy is infrequent in both OS and MIS cases, with minor differences in perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing MIS. Routine MBP should continue to be excluded from the standard of care for nephrectomy in the MIS era.
5.Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States
Stephen SCHMIT ; Kamil MALSHY ; Alexander HOMER ; Borivoj GOLIJANIN ; Christopher TUCCI ; Rebecca ORTIZ ; Sari KHALEEL ; Elias HYAMS ; Dragan GOLIJANIN
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery 2024;27(3):165-171
Purpose:
This study was performed to evaluate the association between mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and perioperative outcomes following nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery (MIS) era.
Methods:
All partial and radical nephrectomies between 2019 and 2021 from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were evaluated. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes were compared between groups where MBP was performed vs. not, in both the MIS and open surgery (OS) cohorts. A propensity score matching technique was utilized within MIS cases to control for covariates. The chi-square and t tests were used to determine significance.
Results:
A total of 11,869 cases met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.Of these, 8,204 (69.1%; comprising 65.3% robotic and 34.7% laparoscopic) underwent MIS, while 3,655 (30.9%) underwent OS. The rate of MBP was higher in the MIS group (16.0% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001). Within the MIS group, MBP was associated with reduced rates of postoperative ileus (0.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.02), while other complications were comparable.Propensity score matching showed no association between MBP and postoperative ileus.However, a lower rate of 30-day readmission in the MBP group became statistically significant (4.4% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.01). Conversely, patients in the MBP group also demonstrated higher rates of pneumonia (1.29% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.002) and pulmonary embolism (0.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) after matching.
Conclusion
MBP practice prior to nephrectomy is infrequent in both OS and MIS cases, with minor differences in perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing MIS. Routine MBP should continue to be excluded from the standard of care for nephrectomy in the MIS era.