Abstract Objective This study evaluates the prevalence, gender differences, and impact of work‐related musculoskeletal injuries (WRIs) among minimally invasive surgeons and assesses their ergonomic practices and awareness. Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across subspecialties, including gynecology, urology, orthopedics, general surgery, pediatrics, plastic surgery, and otolaryngology. Participants completed an anonymous electronic questionnaire addressing demographics, lifestyle, health status, WRIs, ergonomic practices, and preventive measures. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed, and multivariable regression identified independent factors associated with WRIs. Results Sixty‐nine MIS surgeons responded (48% female, 52% male; mean age 45 years). Half (49.3%) reported at least one WRI, most commonly affecting the neck, back, and wrists. Female surgeons were significantly more likely to experience WRIs compared with male surgeons (69.7% vs. 30.6%, p = 0.001), particularly back, neck, and wrist pain. Preventive measures were inconsistently implemented; male surgeons more often changed surgical approaches, while female surgeons more frequently limited surgical schedules. Robotic surgery alleviated some ergonomic risks but was associated with higher neck pain prevalence compared with non‐robotic approaches (43.5% vs. 21.7%, P = 0.06). Multivariable regression confirmed female gender as the only independent predictor of WRI ( P = 0.007). Conclusion Minimally invasive surgeons report a high prevalence of work‐related injuries, with significant gender disparities in both injury rates and the adoption of preventive strategies. These findings highlight the need for targeted ergonomic education, gender‐sensitive interventions, and systemic improvements to promote surgeon well‐being and ensure professional sustainability.
Bhalwal et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: