Ergonomics of laparoscopic graspers and the importance of haptic feedback: the surgeons’ perspective
© The Author(s) 2016
Received: 21 April 2016
Accepted: 24 May 2016
Published: 4 June 2016
Haptic feedback is drastically reduced in laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery. Introducing enhanced haptic feedback in laparoscopic instruments might well improve surgical safety and efficiency. In the design process of a laparoscopic grasper with enhanced haptic feedback, handle design should be addressed to strive for optimal usability and comfort. Additionally, the surgeons’ perspective on the potential benefits of haptic feedback should be assessed to ascertain the clinical interest of enhanced haptic feedback. A questionnaire was designed to determine surgeons’ use and preferences for laparoscopic instruments and expectations about enhanced haptic feedback. Surgeons were also asked whether they experience physical complaints related to laparoscopic instruments. The questionnaire was distributed to a group of laparoscopic surgeons based in Europe. From the 279 contacted subjects, 98 completed the questionnaire (response rate 35 %). Of all respondents, 77 % reported physical complaints directly attributable to the use of laparoscopic instruments. No evident similarity in the main preference for graspers was found, either with or without haptic feedback. According to respondents, the added value of haptic feedback could be of particular use in feeling differences in tissue consistencies, feeling the applied pressure, locating a tumor or enlarged lymph node, feeling arterial pulse, and limiting strain in the surgeon’s hand. This study stresses that the high prevalence of physical complaints directly related to laparoscopic instruments among laparoscopic surgeons is still relevant. Furthermore, the potential benefits of enhanced haptic feedback in laparoscopic surgery are recognized by laparoscopic specialists. Therefore, haptic feedback is considered an unmet need in laparoscopy.
In laparoscopic surgery, haptic feedback should enable surgeons to perceive interaction forces between instrument and tissue. This is beneficial information regarding accurate regulation of tissue manipulation forces and recognition of tissue characteristics. In open surgery, the surgeon is able to manipulate tissue directly with the gloved hand; i.e., the surgeon directly perceives haptic feedback. In contrast, during laparoscopy, the surgeon can only manipulate tissue indirectly due to the interference of instruments, which are inserted through small incisions. Consequently, haptic feedback is drastically reduced in laparoscopic surgery compared to open abdominal surgery. This is mainly caused by the friction within instruments and dynamic properties of the laparoscopic surgical setup [1, 2]. Introducing enhanced haptic feedback in laparoscopic instruments might well be beneficial for surgical safety and efficiency.
The results of several (pre)clinical studies show that haptic feedback is deficient in laparoscopic surgery [3–5]. Moreover, intra-operative complications appear to be often the result of intentional actions, resulting in unintentional outcomes, caused by visual misperception [6–8]. Additionally, surgical specialists have identified technology as one of the most important risk domains for patient safety . Tholey et al. found that the availability of both visual and haptic feedback leads to better tissue characterization than exclusively visual or haptic feedback . Previous studies argue for the implementation of enhanced haptic feedback to increase efficiency in terms of more successful grasping actions  and accurate control over the instrument-tissue interaction forces . Two recently published literature reviews provide an overview of studies that have been performed regarding haptic feedback in minimally invasive surgery [2, 13]. The authors conclude that both patients and surgeons may well benefit from enhanced haptic feedback in minimally invasive surgical equipment. Although several technological efforts have been made in artificial settings, it is argued that a clinically driven approach should be deployed for a feasible application in surgical practice .
Laparoscopic instruments are known to cause physical discomfort [15, 16] and, moreover, to cause injuries especially affecting the thumbs [17, 18]. Furthermore, almost all laparoscopic handles come with the adage “one size fits all” whereas small hand size is a known risk factor for experiencing physical discomfort and difficulties in the use of laparoscopic instruments [19–21]. Instrument handles are the most important physical interface for laparoscopic surgeons . To strive for optimal usability and comfort, handle design should be specifically addressed during the design process of new types of surgical instruments.
Related to the development of a laparoscopic haptic feedback grasper , the tools that are already used in laparoscopy need to be evaluated. The involvement of end users in the design process is indispensible for suitability, safety, and acceptance [24, 25]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform an evaluation of expert opinions regarding handle designs of currently used laparoscopic gaspers and to determine surgeons’ needs and expectations regarding haptic feedback instruments.
A questionnaire was designed to determine the surgeons’ current use of instruments, their physical complaints related to instrument use, as well as their needs and preferences for laparoscopic instruments. Furthermore, we aimed to identify expectations regarding haptic feedback in future instrument developments. The survey was distributed among attendees of the 23rd annual congress of the European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy (September 2014) and the annual meeting of the Dutch Working Group for Gynecological Endoscopy (October 2014). Additionally, an online version was distributed among the members of the Dutch Society of Endoscopic Surgery (January 2015). The questionnaire was accompanied with an explanation of the aim and was subdivided into categories concerning demographics, physical complaints related to laparoscopic instrument use, handgrip assessment of currently used laparoscopic graspers, preferences for handle designs, and expectations regarding implementation of haptic feedback in laparoscopic surgery. Questions and answer options are presented in the Appendix. A descriptive data analysis was performed with SPSS software, version 22.
Age in years
Glove size (general)
Glove size (men)
Glove size (women)
Years of experience
Years of experience in endoscopy
Endoscopic procedures per month
Handgrip usability assessment
Freedom of movement
Scissors handle A
4.4 ± 1.8
3.8 ± 1.7
4.1 ± 1.5
Scissors handle B
5.0 ± 1.4
4.6 ± 1.4
4.9 ± 1.3
4.0 ± 1.6
4.6 ± 1.5
4.7 ± 1.6
Pistol grip A
5.3 ± 1.4
5.3 ± 1.4
5.0 ± 1.3
Pistol grip B
4.5 ± 1.8
4.6 ± 1.7
4.4 + 1.6
Assessment of the utility of haptic feedback in clinical scenarios
Mean ± SDa
Feeling differences in tissue consistencies
3.5 ± 1.5
Locating a tumor or enlarged lymph node
3.2 ± 1.7
Feeling arterial pulse
2.7 ± 1.6
Feeling how much pressure is being applied
3.6 ± 1.4
Limiting the force on the surgeons’ hand
3.4 ± 1.5
Lowering the time to complete surgery
2.4 ± 1.7
3.2 ± 1.6
Reduction of conversions to open surgery
2.1 ± 1.6
Performing laparoscopy instead of open surgery
2.4 ± 1.7
In this study, expert experiences and opinions regarding handle designs of laparoscopic graspers and regarding implementation of enhanced haptic feedback were evaluated. This study shows, with a prevalence of 77 %, that physical complaints related to the use of laparoscopic instruments are commonly experienced. Whereas direct questioning revealed no similar handgrip preference among the surgical specialists, the handgrip usability assessment results favored the long-lever pistol grip design. Furthermore, the results regarding the utility assessment of haptic feedback show clinical support for the implementation of enhanced haptic feedback in laparoscopic graspers.
Exposure to risk factors for developing physical complaints should obviously be avoided. In the context of laparoscopic instrument use, these risk factors involve adverse postures and motions of the upper extremities, adverse force exertion and excessive local pressure, or friction in the contact surface between instrument and hand . Other risk factors, including precise working and repetitive movements, are apparently inherent to tasks that are to be performed during laparoscopic surgery. However, these factors can also be reinforced by suboptimal surgical instrument design .
Respondents did not show evident similarity in their main preference for graspers, either with or without haptic feedback. However, the long-lever pistol grip was best appraised in the usability assessment. Fifty-one percent of the respondents do sometimes control a scissors handle by means of a so-called palm grip, which approaches the hand posture when controlling a pistol grip. Moreover, our results emphasize that discomfort as a result of contact pressure is frequently experienced in the thumb and thenar area. Based on the indicated use of instruments, we concluded that this pressure-induced discomfort is a result from the use of scissors handles. Additionally, two recent studies also reported clinical support for a pistol-grip handle design. A pistol grip would specifically meet the need to alleviate contact stress during instrument control [28, 29]. In summary, these results suggest that a haptic feedback grasper is best equipped with a pistol grip.
As mentioned in the “Background” section, laparoscopic handles usually come with the adage “one size fits all.” A laparoscopic stapler generally comes with a long-lever pistol grip. Sutton et al. reported that the handles of these devices are too big for a certain group of surgeons, particularly women, who have significantly smaller hands than men . Therefore, two or more sizes should be considered to ascertain suitability for the whole range of end users.
The potential benefits which haptic feedback yields are acknowledged by the respondents. More specifically, according to laparoscopic specialists, enhanced haptic feedback could be of particular use in feeling differences in tissue consistencies, feeling how much pressure is being applied, locating a tumor or enlarged lymph node, feeling arterial pulse, and enhanced instrument ergonomics in terms of limiting the force on the surgeons’ hand.
This study provides directives for the handle design of a haptic feedback grasper. As suggested by Matern et al. during the design process of surgical instruments, muscle activity and task performance under dynamic conditions should be considered . Based on the results of the questionnaire and the principles of haptic feedback, we may hypothesize that haptic feedback is an unmet need in laparoscopic surgery. Along with the development of such a device, the assessed scenarios should be examined in (pre-)clinical experimental research.
Rather than a direct assessment of readily available instruments, this assessment was based on pictures which can be considered as a limitation of our study. A large group of respondents report to use a front-hinged scissors handle, whereas the vast majority of scissors handles used are equipped with back-hinged actuation. We might consider this an artifact of the used method, but we might as well question whether surgeons are aware of the actuation of the instrument. Lastly, since the vast majority of respondents were Dutch, we have to be reticent to extrapolate these findings to Europe as a whole.
This study highlights the clinical importance of well-designed ergonomic laparoscopic instruments. Moreover, the need of haptic feedback in laparoscopic surgery is recognized by surgeons of different disciplines. Both patients and surgeons may well benefit from the implementation of enhanced haptic feedback in laparoscopic instruments.
The authors acknowledge Otmar Klaas for his contribution to the composition of the questionnaire and the design of handle illustrations.
Contributions of the authors
CCJ Alleblas performed the project development, research design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing.
MPH Vleugels performed the project development, research design, data collection, and manuscript writing.
TE Nieboer performed the project development, research design, data collection, and manuscript writing.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was funded with a grant provided by the European Regional Development Fund.
Conflict of interest
CCJ Alleblas and TE Nieboer have no conflicts of interest to disclose. MPH Vleugels is an inventor of haptic feedback instruments.
This is not applicable for this study.
The subjects were informed about the aim of this study. By completing the questionnaire, the participants implicitly declared their agreement with the use of their data for this study.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- Breedveld P, Stassen HG, Meijer DW, Jakimowicz JJ (1999) Manipulation in laparoscopic surgery: overview of impeding effects and supporting aids. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:469–480View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Westebring-van der Putten EP, Goossens RHM, Jakimowicz JJ, Dankelman J (2008) Haptics in minimally invasive surgery—a review. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 17:3–16View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ottermo MV, Ovstedal M, Lango T, Stavdahl O, Yavuz Y, Johansen TA, Marvik R (2006) The role of tactile feedback in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 16:390–400View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- den Boer KT, Herder JL, Sjoerdsma W, Meijer DW, Gouma DJ, Stassen HG (1999) Sensitivity of laparoscopic dissectors—what can you feel? Surg Endosc 13:869–873View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bholat OS, Haluck RS, Kutz RH, Gorman PJ, Krummel TM (1999) Defining the role of haptic feedback in minimally invasive surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 62:62–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Way LW, Stewart L, Gantert W, Liu K, Lee CM, Whang K, Hunter JG (2003) Causes and prevention of laparoscopic bile duct injuries—analysis of 252 cases from a human factors and cognitive psychology perspective. Ann Surg 237:460–469PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Dekker SW, Hugh TB (2008) Laparoscopic bile duct injury: understanding the psychology and heuristics of the error. ANZ J Surg 78:1109–1114View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McKinley SK, Brunt LM, Schwaitzberg SD (2014) Prevention of bile duct injury: the case for incorporating educational theories of expertise. Surg Endosc 28:3385–3391View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rodrigues SP, Ter Kuile M, Dankelman J, Jansen FW (2012) Patient safety risk factors in minimally invasive surgery: a validation study. Gynecol Surg 9:265–27View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tholey G, Desai JP, Castellanos AE (2005) Force feedback plays a significant role in minimally invasive surgery: results and analysis. Ann Surg 241:102–109PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Heijnsdijk EA, Dankelman J, Gouma DJ (2002) Effectiveness of grasping and duration of clamping using laparoscopic graspers. Surg Endosc 16:1329–1331View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Marucci DD, Shakeshaft AJ, Cartmill JA, Cox MR, Adams SG, Martin CJ (2000) Grasper trauma during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Aust NZ J Surg 70:578–581View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- van der Meijden OA, Schijven MP (2009) The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review. Surg Endosc 23:1180–1190View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Schostek S, Schurr MO, Buess GF (2009) Review on aspects of artificial tactile feedback in laparoscopic surgery. Med Eng Phys 31:887–898View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lucas-Hernandez M, Pagador JB, Perez-Duarte FJ, Castello P, Sanchez-Margallo FM (2014) Ergonomics problems due to the use and design of dissector and needle holder: a survey in minimally invasive surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 24:E170–E177View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sari V, Nieboer TE, Vierhout ME, Stegeman DF, Kluivers KB (2010) The operation room as a hostile environment for surgeons: physical complaints during and after laparoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 19:105–109View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Van Veelen MA, Meijer DW (1999) Ergonomics and design of laparoscopic instruments: results of a survey among laparoscopic surgeons. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:481–489View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Berguer R (1998) Surgical technology and the ergonomics of laparoscopic instruments. Surg Endosc 12:458–462View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sutton E, Irvin M, Zeigler C, Lee G, Park A (2014) The ergonomics of women in surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1051–1055View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Adams DM, Fenton SJ, Schirmer BD, Mahvi DM, Horvath K, Nichol P (2008) One size does not fit all: current disposable laparoscopic devices do not fit the needs of female laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 22:2310–2313View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Berguer R, Hreljac A (2004) The relationship between hand size and difficulty using surgical instruments: a survey of 726 laparoscopic surgeons. Surg Endosc 18:508–512View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Goossens RHM, van Veelen MA (2001) Assessment of ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 10:175–179View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vleugels M, Nieboer B (2015) Real time haptic feedback in endoscopy; the proof of concept. Gynecol Surg 12(Suppl 1):97Google Scholar
- Santos-Carreras L, Hagen M, Gassert R, Bleuler H (2012) Survey on surgical instrument handle design: ergonomics and acceptance. Surg Innov 19:50–59View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jinadu O (2005) A multi-centre survey on the team concept of instrument design in gyn-endoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 14:345–351View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kuijt-Evers LFM (2007) Comfort in using hand tools: theory, design and evaluation. Dissertation, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- Rodrick D, Karwowski W, Marras WS (2012) Work-related upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- Buchel D, Marvik R, Hallabrin B, Matern U (2010) Ergonomics of disposable handles for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 24:992–1004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tung KD, Shorti RM, Downey EC, Bloswick DS, Merryweather AS (2015) The effect of ergonomic laparoscopic tool handle design on performance and efficiency. Surg Endosc 29:2500–2505View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Matern U, Kuttler G, Giebmeyer C, Waller P, Faist M (2004) Ergonomic aspects of five different types of laparoscopic instrument handles under dynamic conditions with respect to specific laparoscopic tasks: an electromyographic-based study. Surg Endosc 18:1231–1241View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar