3.2. Musculoskeletal Discomfort Prevalence
The self-reported period prevalence of MSD was 99.1%, with 217 of 219 participants reporting pain. Of these, 168 (76.7%) reported hand pain, 215 (98.2%) reported body pain, and 121 (55.3%) reported headaches. The reported pain affected daily activities for 168 (67.6%) of participants. In the hands, the most commonly reported areas of MSD were the right wrist (37.9%), the right distal thumb (first proximal and distal phalangeal area; 37%), and the right thumb base (first metacarpal area; 34.7%) (
Figure 1). MSD was reported in some portion of the right thumb [phalangeal and metacarpal areas] by 49.8% of participants. Body MSD was most commonly reported in the lower back (76.7%), shoulders (72.6%), and neck (71.7%) (
Figure 2).
Participants were most likely to attribute thumb (81.7%), hand (74.5%), and finger (75%) discomfort completely to their work in spay and neuter. Over 50% of participants experiencing wrist, forearm, elbow, shoulder and upper back discomfort attributed their discomfort completely to their work. Overall, respondents attributed 91% of reported instances of MSD entirely or in part to spay-neuter work.
Figure 1.
Percentage of participants experiencing MSD of any region of the hands and wrists in the past month of spay-neuter work (Hand images used with permission of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University).
Figure 1.
Percentage of participants experiencing MSD of any region of the hands and wrists in the past month of spay-neuter work (Hand images used with permission of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University).
Figure 2.
Percentage of participants experiencing MSD of any region of the body in the past month of spay-neuter work.
Figure 2.
Percentage of participants experiencing MSD of any region of the body in the past month of spay-neuter work.
The 99% one-month period prevalence of MSD in this study is comparable to the one-year period prevalence found in a recent survey of New Zealand veterinarians [
4] and is higher than that reported in Australian veterinarians [
5]. The body areas with greatest MSD prevalence were the same in the current study as in these previous surveys, with the low back having the greatest MSD prevalence in all studies. In the current survey, however, the prevalence of neck, shoulder, and hand/wrist MSD was substantially higher than reported in previous studies. This difference may have to do with the specific postural and ergonomic stressors encountered by spay-neuter surgeons compared to veterinarians in general practice.
MSD is a common finding in workplace and population surveys [
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
20]. Musculoskeletal loads during work, including static postures, awkward postures, repetition, and force, are positively correlated with MSD in the body regions subjected to the loads [
21]. Static body postures are common during open surgery, and there is increased postural stress from the forward bending of the neck. [
8,
13]. A previous study that measured neck and back muscle activity in surgeons using electromyography (EMG) found that performing open surgery was associated with significantly higher muscle activities in the cervical erector spinae and upper trapezius muscles compared with endovascular and laparoscopic procedures [
22]. This increased muscle activity was associated with a significant increase in musculoskeletal pain in the postoperative versus the preoperative period in the open surgeons but not in the endovascular or laparoscopic surgeons.
There were only 13 (5.9%) left-handed respondents, and both the right-handed and left-handed surgeons experienced greater mean number of areas of pain and greater mean pain score in the right hand than in the left. In the US population, left-handedness is estimated at about 10% of the population, although approximately one third of these individuals are “mixed-handed”, preferring to do some tasks with the right hand and some with the left. Females in the US are less likely to be left-handed than males, with about 6–7% of US females concordantly left handed [
23]. In the present study, the 5.9% left-handed prevalence is lower than that reported in the US population, and likely represents the lower prevalence of left-handedness in females, and the possible tendency of mixed-handed individuals to perform right-handed surgery due to the prevalence of right-handed surgery instruments.
Previous reports of MSD in veterinarians [
4,
5] and human surgeons [
8] have not included MSD questions about specific hand regions. Surgery is largely a manual task, and many spay-neuter surgeons anecdotally report specific hand, digit, or wrist pain. By including the Cornell Hand Discomfort Survey questions, this study was able to localize and quantify this discomfort. In the future, this information may prove to be important for the teaching of ergonomic surgery techniques and perhaps for the development of surgical instruments.
Males and females did not differ in their tendency to suffer hand (Fisher’s Exact Test: P = 0.18) or head pain (P = 0.15) or to have missed work due to any pain (P = 0.18). In other, population-wide surveys of MSD, researchers have found that females report a higher prevalence and greater severity of MSD than males [
24,
25]. Similarly, a higher prevalence of MSD in any body region was found for female physicians in China [
6]. However, studies of MSD in veterinarians have either not studied gender differences in pain experienced by participants [
4,
5], or have noted a greater risk in male veterinarians for work-related chronic MSD, severe injuries, and dog and cat bites and scratches [
26]. In the current study, the small number of male respondents (10% of sample) may have contributed to the lack of differences in MSD reported by male and female veterinarians. This gender distribution is similar to that of veterinarians responding to other surveys of shelter veterinarians [
27,
28] of 11 to 16% and is likely representative of the demographics of veterinarians in the field of spay-neuter.
Despite the high prevalence of MSD in survey participants, only 35 (16%) had ever been absent from their work in spay-neuter due to MSD. Previous studies have used absence from work as a proxy for the severity of MSD [
4] instead of asking participants to rate the severity of their pain. However, the results of the current study show that many veterinarians continue to work despite experiencing moderate to severe pain. In many instances, veterinarians experiencing MSD may feel unable to miss work, aware that their work may be left undone in their absence. Relief veterinarians may not be available, or may be unable to fulfill the duties of the spay-neuter veterinarian unless already experienced in high-volume spay-neuter. In order to avoid interference from these factors in the rating of MSD severity, the current study used participant ratings of pain intensity, frequency, and effect on daily activities as a means of creating pain severity scores.
3.4. Risk Factors for MSD
The univariate analyses produced only two logistic relationships were statistically significant: age and head pain (β = −0.06, SEβ = 0.02, P = 0.0003, OR = 0.95), and career length and head pain (β = −0.07, SEβ = 0.03, P = 0.01, OR = 0.93). Younger veterinarians and those with a shorter career in spay-neuter were more likely to experience headaches. This fits well with studies of headache prevalence that indicate that the occurrence of both migraine and non-migraine headaches peaks in between ages 30 and 39 [
29,
30]. In addition, in adults, headaches of all types are more common in women than in men [
24], and migraines are approximately 3 times more common in adult premenopausal women than in men of the same age [
29]. In the current study, as in the rest of veterinary medicine, females are more highly represented in younger age groups. Males represented 12.2% of veterinarians in this sample aged 40 and over, but just 7.4% of the veterinarians under 40. This gender disparity may have accounted for some of the increased headache prevalence in the younger veterinarians. The relationship between age and career length is likely responsible for the relationship between career length and headache. Headache prevalence was not related to any of the other workplace or psychosocial factors studied, and the addition of headache pain to the analysis did not alter the overall discomfort prevalence reported in the current study.
Of the explanatory variables assessed using univariate linear regression, only career length, job satisfaction, stress, and surgery hours per week had consistent effects on the extent of pain (
Table 1). Of the response variables, the number of hand areas experiencing pain appeared to be the most responsive to the working environment.
Table 1.
Univariate linear regression results (all statistically significant relationships have positive slopes).
Table 1.
Univariate linear regression results (all statistically significant relationships have positive slopes).
| Hand Pain | Body Pain | Overall |
---|
Factor | # of areas | Severity | # of areas | Severity | Severity |
---|
Demographic | | | | | |
Age | F = 0.27, P = 0.60 | F = 5.06, P = 0.03 | F = 0.86, P = 0.35 | F = 0.91, P = 0.34 | F = 4.00, P = 0.05 |
Career in S/N | F = 5.57, P = 0.02 | F = 21.16, P < 0.001 | F = 0.61, P = 0.43 | F = 4.51, P = 0.04 | F = 17.68, P < 0.001 |
Psychosocial | | | | | |
Job Satisfaction | F = 0.05, P = 0.003 | F = 4.93, P = 0.03 | F = 6.43, P = 0.01 | F = 3.09, P = 0.08 | F = 6.09, P = 0.01 |
Stress | F = 13.05, P < 0.001 | F = 6.42, P = 0.01 | F = 7.56. P = 0.006 | F = 8.76, P = 0.003 | F = 11.83, P < 0.001 |
Practical | | | | | |
Dogs/day | F = 4.95, P = 0.03 | F = 0.30, P = 0.59 | F = 1.22, P = 0.27 | F = 2.13, P = 0.15 | F = 1.46, P = 0.23 |
Cats/day | F = 1.25, P = 0.27 | F = 0.34, P = 0.56 | F = 0.22, P = 0.64 | F = 1.07, P = 0.30 | F = 0.97, P = 0.33 |
Units/day | F = 5.64, P = 0.02 | F = 0.68, P = 0.41 | F = 1.45, P = 0.23 | F = 3.34, P = 0.07 | F = 2.57, P = 0.11 |
Dogs/week | F = 6.66, P = 0.01 | F = 0.72, P = 0.39 | F = 1.33, P = 0.25 | F = 1.60, P = 0.21 | F = 1.67, P = 20 |
Cats/week | F = 5.82, P = 0.02 | F = 3.93, P = 0.05 | F = 1.07, P = 0.30 | F = 2.08, P = 0.15 | F = 4.51, P = 0.04 |
Units/week | F = 8.48, P = 0.04 | F = 2.15, P = 0.14 | F = 1.88, P = 0.17 | F = 2.42, P = 0.12 | F = 3.46, P = 0.06 |
Speed (units/hr) | F = 2.12, P = 0.15 | F = 0.005, P = 0.94 | F = 1.25, P = 0.26 | F = 1.33, P = 0.25 | F = 0.52, P = 0.47 |
Sx hours/day | F = 1.42, P = 0.23 | F = 0.89, P = 0.35 | F = 0.01, P = 0.91 | F = 0.49, P = 0.49 | F = 1.01, P = 0.31 |
Sx hours/week | F = 10.28, P = 0.002 | F = 3.92, P = 0.05 | F = 4.52, P = 0.03 | F = 2.64, P = 0.11 | F = 4.98, P = 0.03 |
The results of the univariate analysis were used to develop candidate models for multivariate analysis. The three response variables that were tested were any hand pain, total hand pain, and total pain, and the explanatory variables included CAREER (length of time in S/N), SATISFACTION, TIME (total surgery time per week), LOAD (total units per week), SPEED (units/hour).
Any Hand Pain, Eleven candidate models had a ΔAIC < 2, suggesting strong relative support (
Table 2). The low model weights suggest that none of models offer much explanatory power. Based on weight sums, the relative importance of the explanatory variables is CAREER (Σω = 0.53) > SPEED (Σω = 0.52) > TIME (Σω = 0.51) > SATISFACTION (Σω = 0.49) > LOAD (Σω = 0.47).
Table 2.
Any hand pain results (k = number of parameters).
Table 2.
Any hand pain results (k = number of parameters).
| k | ΔAIC | Weight (ω) |
---|
Career | 1 | 0.0000 | 0.0368 |
Career + Speed | 2 | 0.1000 | 0.0366 |
Career + Time + Speed | 3 | 1.0400 | 0.0349 |
Career +Load + Speed | 3 | 1.0400 | 0.0349 |
Career + Time | 2 | 1.1200 | 0.0348 |
Time | 1 | 1.2800 | 0.0345 |
Time + Speed | 2 | 1.5000 | 0.0341 |
Speed | 1 | 1.6200 | 0.0339 |
Load + Speed | 2 | 1.7300 | 0.0337 |
Career + Satisfaction | 2 | 1.9500 | 0.0334 |
Career + Load | 2 | 1.9700 | 0.0333 |
Career + Time + Load | 3 | 2.0300 | 0.0332 |
Career + Satisfaction + Speed | 3 | 2.0800 | 0.0331 |
Time + Load | 2 | 2.3500 | 0.0327 |
Career + Time + Load + Speed | 4 | 2.9400 | 0.0317 |
Career + Satisfaction + Load + Speed | 4 | 2.9500 | 0.0317 |
Career + Satisfaction + Time + Speed | 4 | 2.9900 | 0.0317 |
Load | 1 | 3.0300 | 0.0316 |
Satisfaction | 1 | 3.0400 | 0.0316 |
Career + Satisfaction + Time | 3 | 3.0400 | 0.0316 |
Satisfaction + Time | 2 | 3.2200 | 0.0313 |
Time + Load + Speed | 3 | 3.4200 | 0.0310 |
Satisfaction + Time + Speed | 3 | 3.4700 | 0.0309 |
Satisfaction + Speed | 2 | 3.6200 | 0.0307 |
Satisfaction + Load + Speed | 3 | 3.6500 | 0.0306 |
Career + Satisfaction + Load | 3 | 3.9300 | 0.0302 |
Career + Satisfaction + Time + Load | 4 | 4.0100 | 0.0301 |
Satisfaction +Time + Load | 3 | 4.3300 | 0.0296 |
Global | 5 | 4.8700 | 0.0288 |
Satisfaction + Load | 2 | 5.0000 | 0.0286 |
Satisfaction + Time + Load + Speed | 4 | 5.3700 | 0.0281 |
Total Hand Pain, Five candidate models had a ΔAIC < 2, suggesting strong relative support (
Table 3). The low model weights suggest that none of models offer much explanatory power. Based on weight sums, the relative importance of the explanatory variables is TIME (Σω = 0.60) > CAREER (Σω = 0.57) > SATISFACTION (Σω = 0.52) > LOAD (Σω = 0.51) > SPEED (Σω = 0.50).
Table 3.
Total hand pain results (k = number of parameters).
Table 3.
Total hand pain results (k = number of parameters).
| k | ΔAIC | Weight (ω) |
---|
Career + Satisfaction + Time + Load | 4 | 0.0000 | 0.0445 |
Career + Satisfaction + Time | 3 | 0.7203 | 0.0430 |
Career +Time + Load | 3 | 0.9069 | 0.0426 |
Career + Satisfaction + Time + Speed | 4 | 1.3812 | 0.0416 |
Global | 5 | 1.8542 | 0.0406 |
Career + Time | 2 | 2.3254 | 0.0396 |
Career +Time + Load + Speed | 4 | 2.6180 | 0.0391 |
Career + Time + Speed | 3 | 2.8054 | 0.0387 |
Satisfaction + Time + Load | 3 | 3.7790 | 0.0369 |
Time + Load | 2 | 4.2483 | 0.0360 |
Satisfaction + Time | 2 | 4.6189 | 0.0354 |
Satisfaction + Time + Speed | 3 | 5.3012 | 0.0342 |
Satisfaction + Time + Load + Speed | 4 | 5.5752 | 0.0337 |
Time | 1 | 5.7424 | 0.0334 |
Time + Load + Speed | 3 | 5.8976 | 0.0332 |
Career + Satisfaction | 2 | 6.0012 | 0.0330 |
Time + Speed | 2 | 6.2566 | 0.0326 |
Career | 1 | 6.7489 | 0.0318 |
Career + Satisfaction + Load + Speed | 4 | 7.0404 | 0.0313 |
Career + Satisfaction + Speed | 3 | 7.3815 | 0.0308 |
Career + Satisfaction + Load | 3 | 7.7311 | 0.0303 |
Career + Speed | 2 | 7.9864 | 0.0299 |
Career + Load + Speed | 3 | 8.3751 | 0.0293 |
Career + Load | 2 | 8.6724 | 0.0289 |
Satisfaction + Load + Speed | 3 | 13.2950 | 0.0229 |
Satisfaction | 1 | 13.9383 | 0.0222 |
Load + Speed | 2 | 14.1369 | 0.0220 |
Satisfaction + Load | 2 | 14.9930 | 0.0210 |
Speed | 1 | 15.3710 | 0.0207 |
Load | 1 | 15.3816 | 0.0206 |
Satisfaction + Speed | 2 | 15.4846 | 0.0205 |
Total Pain, Three candidate models had a ΔAIC < 2, suggesting strong relative support (
Table 4). The low model weights suggest that none of models offer much explanatory power. Based on weight sums, the relative importance of the explanatory variables is TIME (Σω = 0.57) > CAREER (Σω = 0.56) > SATISFACTION (Σω = 0.55) > LOAD (Σω = 0.52) > SPEED (Σω = 0.50).
Table 4.
Total pain results (k = number of parameters).
Table 4.
Total pain results (k = number of parameters).
| k | ΔAIC | Weight (ω) |
---|
Career + Satisfaction +Time | 3 | 0.0000 | 0.0437 |
Career + Satisfaction + Time + Speed | 4 | 0.8085 | 0.0420 |
Career + Satisfaction + Time +Load | 4 | 1.4731 | 0.0406 |
Career + Satisfaction + Load | 3 | 2.3131 | 0.0390 |
Global | 5 | 2.6961 | 0.0382 |
Satisfaction + Time | 2 | 3.0435 | 0.0376 |
Career + Time | 2 | 3.3571 | 0.0370 |
Satisfaction + Time + Speed | 3 | 3.6311 | 0.0365 |
Career + Satisfaction + Load + Speed | 4 | 4.1144 | 0.0356 |
Career + Time + Speed | 3 | 4.3919 | 0.0351 |
Satisfaction + Time + Load | 3 | 4.4190 | 0.0351 |
Career + Time + Load | 3 | 5.1900 | 0.0337 |
Satisfaction + Time + Load + Speed | 4 | 5.4973 | 0.0332 |
Career + Time + Load + Speed | 4 | 5.8471 | 0.0327 |
Career + Satisfaction | 2 | 6.0098 | 0.0324 |
Time | 1 | 6.1407 | 0.0322 |
Career + Load | 2 | 6.2319 | 0.0320 |
Career + Satisfaction +Speed | 3 | 6.3050 | 0.0319 |
Satisfaction + Load | 2 | 6.7198 | 0.0313 |
Time + Speed | 2 | 6.9748 | 0.0309 |
Time + Load | 2 | 7.9117 | 0.0295 |
Career + Load + Speed | 3 | 8.1615 | 0.0291 |
Satisfaction + Load + Speed | 3 | 8.2985 | 0.0289 |
Career | 1 | 8.3668 | 0.0288 |
Time + Load + Speed | 3 | 8.3998 | 0.0287 |
Career + Speed | 2 | 8.9420 | 0.0280 |
Load | 1 | 10.4245 | 0.0260 |
Load + Speed | 2 | 12.2050 | 0.0238 |
Satisfaction + Speed | 2 | 12.8095 | 0.0231 |
Satisfaction | 1 | 13.0429 | 0.0228 |
Speed | 1 | 14.9289 | 0.0207 |
The use of an information theoretic approach in this context allows for the ranking of candidate models by their relative explanatory power; high ranking models (i.e., ΔAIC < 2) explain more variation in the response variable (i.e., have stronger relative support) than the other tested candidate models. The weight of a given model is indicative of the amount of variation explained by a particular model. A model can provide strong support relative to other candidate models while not providing much absolute explanatory power. The results of these analyses suggest that the assessed explanatory variables (e.g., CAREER) are contributors to MSD but that there other factors at play that were either not assessed in the questionnaire or were not assessed in a way that allowed for the development of models with more explanatory power.
There was a consistent relationship between the amount of time spent working in spay-neuter and the severity of hand and overall MSD experienced. An increase in MSD severity was found both for increasing years working in spay-neuter practice, and for increasing hours per week spent spaying and neutering. While one might expect that increases in age could explain part of the increase in MSD for those with increasing career length, the univariate analysis found that age was positively related only with hand pain severity, whereas increases in spay-neuter career length was positively related to increases in number of areas of hand pain, severity of hand pain, severity of body pain, and severity of overall pain. Thus, age explains only a portion of the increased MSD attributable to career length in spay-neuter.
Similarly, the increase in MSD experienced by those working more weekly surgical hours was not because they were performing a higher numbers of surgeries. Increased surgical units per week (regardless of number of hours worked) only resulted in an increase in the number of areas of hand pain, with no effect on number of areas of body pain or overall pain severity. However, increasing hours in surgery per week was positively related to increases in number of areas of hand pain, number of areas of body pain, and overall pain severity. Thus, it appears that the weekly hours in surgery, rather than the number of surgeries performed, was the greater factor in MSD prevalence and severity.
While increasing weekly hours in surgery is related to greater MSD prevalence and severity, the number of daily hours in surgery is not related to reported MSD. Surgeons working fewer, longer days have the same MSD risk as surgeons working the same number of weekly surgery hours spread over several days.
Surgical speed appears to have little relationship to MSD. Surgeons completing only a few surgical units per hour had similar MSD prevalence and severity to surgeons completing two or three times as many surgical units per hour. Two possibilities might explain this. First, the ergonomic strain of the sustained static posture used for surgery may be similar for a given duration, regardless of the number of procedures performed. Second, surgical speed may have less to do with the speed of the operator’s hands, and have more to do with the efficiency of surgical techniques used and the efficiency of the operating room. The speedier surgeon may not be performing faster movements, but instead may be completing surgeries with fewer movements, and also waiting through less “down time” between procedures while in surgery.
The interplay between weekly hours in surgery, surgical speed, and MSD suggests workplace and work schedule modifications that could mitigate the risk of MSD for spay-neuter veterinarians. High weekly surgical hours is one of the easiest workplace factors to modify. An obvious way of decreasing surgical hours would be simply to implement schedules with fewer surgical hours per surgeon. However, increases in workplace efficiency may allow surgeons to complete the same amount of work in less time without sacrificing quality or income. This would be expected to decrease the risk of MSD since, unlike work hours, speed and total surgery numbers are not related to MSD. One way to increase efficiency is to decrease the surgeon’s amount of idle time between surgeries. This may be achieved by increasing the staff-to-veterinarian ratio so that all non-veterinary tasks are performed by veterinary technicians and assistants, and by increasing equipment such as surgery tables and anesthesia machines; this way, the surgeon does not have to wait for patient transport between surgeries but can simply don new sterile gloves and proceed to the next surgery. This could be accomplished without sacrificing potentially beneficial “micropauses” in workflow. Pauses of as little as 15–30 seconds executed multiple times per hour, especially if combined with stretches or exercises, may be beneficial in reducing MSD [
31].
A second way to increase efficiency in spay-neuter surgery is to implement surgical techniques that are themselves more efficient. Instruction in high volume surgery techniques is available via continuing education wet labs and on DVD’s and downloadable videos [
32]. These techniques, taught by boarded veterinary surgeons, are minimally invasive and safe for patients, and generally decrease the surgeon’s time to complete each surgery. Further benefits of these techniques include decreased patient time under anesthesia, a decreased risk of patient cooling due to decreased surgery time and decreased body cavity exposure, and decreased tissue trauma.
In addition to implementing as many measures to increase efficiency as possible, it may be wise to place some limitations on the surgical hours expected of each surgeon, in order to preserve the health and career longevity of spay-neuter surgeons. For some, full time work may need to include some non-surgical time in order to avoid the MSD risks associated with increasingly high hours per week in surgery.
Low job satisfaction and high job stress were also positively related to increases in MSD prevalence and severity. This relationship between psychosocial factors and MSD has been noted in many other studies [
4,
5,
25]. Increases in feelings of stress may lead to muscle tension and an increase in MSD, or conversely, increases in work-related MSD may make work more stressful and less satisfying. It is likely that both of these are true to some extent and in some participants, in other words, that psychosocial stressors can be both the cause and the result of MSD.
3.5. Posture, Activities, and Treatments
Respondents reported using a variety of positions and devices during the surgery day. Most participants (184 responses, 84%) reported standing during surgery “always” or “most of the time,” whereas only 17 (7.8%) surgeons usually sit for surgery. The remaining respondents alternate between sitting and standing during the surgery day.
Most participants reported using an anti-fatigue floor mat (164 responses “always” or “most of the time”; 74.8%) and shoes chosen for comfort and support (185 “always” or “most of the time”; 84.5%), and some respondents used orthotic shoe inserts (36, 16.4%). Standing surgeons may experience decreased fatigue and discomfort in the back and lower limbs with the use of a floor mat, particularly if the duration of standing is at least 3–4 hours [
33,
34,
35]. The mats associated with the least fatigue and discomfort during prolonged standing tend to be those characterized by increased elasticity, increased stiffness, and decreased energy absorption [
33]. Cushioned shoes [
34] and insoles [
35] also provide increased comfort, and a combination of cushioned footwear and floor mat provides the best results.
Most surgeons preferred to adjust the surgery table so that their elbows and wrists remain level most of the time (162 responses “always” or “most of the time”; 74%). Adjusting the height of the surgical table to suit the patient size and the force required during the surgery may reduce positional ergonomic stressors. A table that is too low may lead to an excessively forward bent back and neck, whereas a table that is too high may result in elevated shoulders and abducted upper arms. Optimal table height should allow for relaxed shoulder and upper arm positions and minimize bending of the spine. Surgeries requiring greater application of force, such as adult dog castrations, may be easiest to perform with a slightly lower table height to enhance leverage [
36]. Positioning the patient closer to the surgeon may also alleviate ergonomic stress on the neck, shoulders, and back [
13]. In some cases, alleviating postural stress on one body region will result in increased postural stress in a different region [
37]. The surgeon may be best served by adopting a variety of positions throughout the day, by alternating between seated and standing surgeries, or by selecting positions that decrease postural stress on problem areas.
For surgeons who sit, the use of a saddle-shaped seat instead of a standard surgical stool may allow the surgeon to maintain a more neutral lower back position [
37] and may allow the patient to be positioned nearer to the surgeon while avoiding raised shoulder or arm positions, even during surgeries of large, deep-bodied patients. However, some people experience increases in leg discomfort when using saddle chairs [
38] so individual preference and comfort should be considered.
The repetitive hand and wrist motions required during surgeries put these body regions at risk. Awkward grips, twisting motions, and application of force with a bent or deviated wrist will exacerbate the ergonomic risks to the hands and wrists [
21]. Surgeries on larger patients may require the use of greater force. Physical compression, such as the chronic pressure of the surgical instruments on the digits, can be an additional risk factor for hand MSD [
36]. These risks can be mitigated somewhat by improving surgical technique in order to eliminate unnecessary use of awkward or bent hand positions. Surgical training should emphasize proper instrument-handling techniques and hand positions, and surgeons could benefit from re-evaluating their own technique periodically to ensure that they are not placing unnecessary stress on their hands and wrists. Videotaping may assist the solo surgeon in analyzing and correcting their instrument-handling techniques.
Additional factors that may affect the forces placed on surgeons’ hands include surgical instrument selection and maintenance and suture needle sharpness. Some needleholders and hemostatic forceps may require several kilograms of force to engage the ratchet, and a lateral push of over 1 kilogram to disengage the ratchet [
39]. This force may be repeated hundreds of times a day, each time the surgeon opens or closes an instrument. Selecting instruments appropriate to the surgeon’s hand size and to the surgical task may allow for selection of instruments requiring less force. Regular instrument lubrication and maintenance may also decrease the amount of force required to operate the instruments. Ensuring that suture needles are sharp will also decrease the amount of force that must be applied while suturing, and the gentler tissue handling that results may be beneficial for the patient as well as the surgeon [
39].
Many respondents reported that their comfort during the surgery day was improved by physical activities outside of the workday, most commonly sports and aerobic activities (95 responses; 43.4%), stretching (93 responses; 42.5%), strength or weight training (69 responses; 31.5%), and yoga (50 responses; 22.8%). A physically active lifestyle has been associated with lower prevalence of MSDs, although it is not clear whether physical activity prevents MSD, or whether those with less MSD are more active [
40,
41]. Once MSDs are present, exercise therapy can result in improvement of chronic discomfort, and staying active after lower back injury can reduce the duration of sick leave [
42].
Seventy-nine (36.1%) respondents had used a physical or alternative therapy to ease their discomfort, including massage (55 responses; 25.1%), chiropractic (29 responses; 13.2%), physical therapy (16 responses; 7.3%), acupuncture (7 responses; 3.2%), and one response (0.5%) each for occupational therapy and Alexander Technique. Twenty-three respondents used more than one of these therapies. Manual therapies such as chiropractic and massage can be effective at relieving acute and chronic low back pain, neck pain, certain extremity joint conditions, and some types of headache [
43]. An intensive, multidisciplinary approach that incorporates occupational and clinical therapies has been shown to produce greater improvements in pain and function for chronic low back pain compared to non-multidisciplinary rehabilitation [
42].
One hundred thirty-six participants (62.1%) reported using NSAIDs to maintain their comfort during surgery. The study did not distinguish between regular versus intermittent use of NSAIDs. In addition, 15 (16.8%) of these NSAID users also used a prescription medication for pain, and 7 (3.2%) used muscle relaxants. All users of prescription pain medications and muscle relaxants also used NSAIDs. The rate of use of NSAIDs in the current study, while apparently high, is actually typical for residents of Western countries, where up to 70% of the adult population uses over-the-counter analgesics regularly [
44]. NSAID use has been shown to decrease pain and improve function in patients with chronic low back pain [
42]. Muscle relaxants can also be effective at reducing pain, particularly in the case of acute MSD [
42]. Other treatments for pain include using heat or cold application (49 responses; 22.4%) and receiving injections for pain (4 responses, 1.8%). Fourteen participants (6.4%) have had surgery for a painful condition that they believe was caused by, or was exacerbated by, their work in spay-neuter surgery.
Twenty-nine participants (13.2%) wear some type of brace or splint at least sometimes while not performing surgery, while seven participants (3.2%) use braces, splints or supports during surgery. Questions did not distinguish types of brace or splint, or the body regions being supported, or the frequency or duration of use. In some cases, a splint or brace may be effective for supporting an injured limb and providing pain relief through immobilization. Many health care providers recommend wrist splinting at night for symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome. While evidence for the benefit of this practice is inconclusive, studies have also noted few if any negative effects [
45]. Back belts worn during work have not been shown to be effective at preventing low back pain [
46], and lumbar supports are ineffective as treatment for low back pain [
42]. Prolonged use of lumbar supports may result in decreased muscular strength in the trunk, as well as a false sense of security [
42].
Many surgeons responded that they “try to maintain good posture” during the surgery day. Open-ended responses for how participants attempted to maintain good posture include postural answers (e.g., stand up straight; try not to slouch or hunch over; stay skeletally aligned or balanced), behavioral answers (e.g., cuing postural self-awareness and self adjustment to surgical events such as adjusting posture at the beginning of each surgery) and patient and equipment-positioning answers (e.g., position table at a specific height, use a platform or stool to change their height relative to a fixed-height or inadequately adjustable table). In addition, many surgeons had between-surgery tension-relief routines including specific stretches, yoga, or dancing. Many listened to music during surgery (141 responses “always” or “most of the time”; 64.4%), which may also encourage body movement and tension relief.
While 26% of respondents were satisfied with their posture during surgery, another 50% of participants admitted being unsure what constitutes “good” posture for surgery. About one third of respondents (36%) responded that they did not know how to make changes in their posture in surgery, and 25% of respondents answered that it was too hard to change their postural habits. Half of respondents felt that they start the day with good posture but then fall into old habits, and 42% get too tired or fatigued during the surgery day to maintain good posture. Twenty-nine percent responded that they needed to concentrate on the patient during surgery, not their posture. Only 3.2% of respondents answered that they believed posture was unimportant during surgery, while 94.4% agree or strongly agree that posture in surgery is important.
Most spay-neuter veterinarians have received no instruction of any type in posture or ergonomics during surgery, although a few have received instruction from multiple sources. Only 27 participants (12.3%) received instruction during veterinary school, and one (0.4%) received instruction during internship or residency. Twenty six participants (11.9%) received postural or ergonomic instruction during veterinary continuing education, and 21 (9.6%) have had instruction in non-veterinary venues, such as from a healthcare provider. Thirty-six participants (16.4%) have studied posture and ergonomics independently; for 23 of these 36 participants, this independent study was their only postural or ergonomic instruction. A total of 152 (69.4%) participants have had either no formal instruction in posture and ergonomics, or have learned about posture and ergonomics via independent study only. Indeed, training in ergonomics and posture is uncommon in the training of human surgeons as well [
47,
48], and ergonomics in surgery and surgeons’ postural health are just beginning to receive attention by researchers [
13,
47,
49].
Postural and ergonomic training interventions have mixed results for prevention of MSD in workplaces. For manual handling tasks,
i.e., those that require force to lift, lower, push, pull, carry, move, hold or restrain a person, animal or object, training interventions have generally been ineffective at preventing MSD [
50]. For computer users, training alone can result in transient improvements in posture and positioning, while postural training combined with ongoing videography or photo feedback can result in a more sustained improvement in posture [
51]. There has been some success for postural intervention in surgeons. A prospective study of a postural training and awareness intervention (Alexander Technique) in laparoscopic surgeons resulted in improved surgical ergonomics, speed, and dexterity, as well as subjective improvements in posture during surgery [
47].
The optimal intervention strategy for prevention of and recovery from work-related MSD for spay-neuter veterinarians remains unknown. For the spay-neuter surgeon, the most useful strategy may be a combination of methodologies that include education, postural training, visual feedback, and workplace and work schedule modifications. Education could include information about ergonomic risk factors, equipment choices, patient positioning, and how to select and adjust equipment in order to minimize postural risks. Training in appropriate positioning and use of hands and body could ideally take place during initial surgical technique training, when surgeons are forming habits, or might occur later in the surgical career. Video or pictoral feedback could enhance learning of appropriate postures and would allow for ongoing monitoring of body positions. Workplace and work schedule modifications would have to occur on a case-by-case basis. A participatory ergonomics approach would likely be useful, in that it would allow individuals to use their own knowledge to control and enhance their working conditions [
52].
In the veterinary field, such interventions would be useful if made available both to practicing spay-neuter veterinarians, as well as to veterinarians newly entering the field. More broadly, since other studies have shown a high rate of MSD in general practice veterinarians as well [
4,
5], veterinary students and general practitioners may also benefit from training in the use of ergonomics and appropriate posture in surgery and in other areas of general practice.
3.6. Methodological Considerations
A one-month period prevalence was chosen for this study for several reasons. Recall periods of greater than two months are likely to underestimate injuries [
53]. The self-reported annual incidence rate for at-work injuries may be over 30% greater when a one-month recall period is used instead of a 12 month period [
54]. Conversely, short recall periods of less than 3 months have been shown to have good correlation with weekly reports of MSD [
55]. The standard recall period for the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire is 1 week; however, with this survey’s low minimum requirement for weekly hours in spay-neuter work (4 hours/week), and the possibility for some intermittent pain, a one-month recall period was chosen. An additional reason for using a one-month recall period versus a one-year recall period is to allow inclusion of as many participants as possible. Since spay-neuter is a relatively new field in veterinary medicine, many veterinarians currently working in spay-neuter have worked in this field for less than one year. Indeed, 30 participants, or 13.7%, had worked in spay-neuter for one year or less at the time of the study.
Much of the MSD reported in the current study could not be explained by the demographic, work-related, and psychosocial factors included in the analysis. The low model weights in the multivariate analysis signify low explanatory power, indicating that the factors analyzed do not explain most of the variability in the prevalence and severity of MSD in spay-neuter veterinarians. Other, non-workplace factors are likely to explain the variability in pain experienced. Activity level, physical fitness, genetics, smoking, alcohol use, and history of past pain or injury may all be factors that contribute to MSD, but these were not included in this study.
Similarly, additional non-surgery-related workplace factors that may be associated with MSD were not evaluated in the present study. In the veterinary setting, lifting heavy animals is a risk factor for injury [
56]. In many high volume surgical practices, veterinary technicians and assistants are primarily responsible for moving and lifting animals, but in some cases veterinarians may perform or assist in lifting tasks. Additional workplace tasks including computer work and motor vehicle use [
57] may also increase the risk of MSD.
A further limitation of this study is that, due to the cross-sectional design, it is not possible to discern cause and effect. It is possible that some spay-neuter veterinarians are now working less, or are slower surgeons, because of pain they have experienced. Also, it is possible that some veterinarians who were experiencing the most pain or job stress have already left the field and no longer participate in conferences or listservs related to the field, so were not aware of the study. The exclusion of these workers no longer in the field may have caused a decrease in reported adverse health effects, known as the “healthy worker effect” [
58]. Conversely, there could be a response bias such that the people experiencing more MSD may be more likely to complete a survey concerning MSD, thus resulting in an increase in reported MSD.