Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of operating room crowding between open and laparoscopic operations

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: The clutter of equipment and lines in today's operating room (O.R.) is increasing. Endoscopic surgical procedures are particularly afflicted by this problem because they require additional equipment. Increasing O.R. crowding may present unnecessary hazards to traffic and adversely affect the performance of the surgical team. The purpose of this study is to provide a quantitative summary of the furniture, equipment, cables, and tubes present during open and laparoscopic operations.

Methods: We prospectively studied an unselected series of general surgical open (OP, n=10) and laparoscopic (LAP, n=10) operations performed at a major university teaching hospital. We recorded the location of all furniture and equipment as well as the source, course, and destination of all cables and tubes in the O.R. Cables and tubes touching the surgeon or the assistant were particularly noted. Results are expressed as median values for each group.

Results: The percent of O.R. space occupied increased from OP=36% to LAP=41% (p<0.002). The median number of cables and tubes present increased from OP=27 to LAP=34 (p<0.0002), with the number of these lines touching a member of the surgical team increasing from OP=2 to LAP=6 (p<0.0003).

Conclusions: We conclude that there is a significant trend toward increasing O.R. crowding during laparoscopic surgery. Innovative designs will be needed to reduce clutter in the O.R. of the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. (1987) Guidelines for construction and equipment of hospital and medical facilities. The American Institute of Architects Press, Washington, DC

  2. (1994) Endosuite (videotape). Stryker Endoscopy

  3. Boyers SP (1991) Operating room setup and instrumentation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 34: 373–386

    Google Scholar 

  4. Green FL, Taylor NC (1994) Operating room configuration. Laparoscopic surgery. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 34–41

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johnston IDA, Hunter AR (1984) Preface, The design and utilization of operating theatres. Edward Arnold, London, p 9

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jolesz FA, Shtern F (1992) The operating room of the future. Report of the national cancer institute workshop, Imaging-guided stereotactic tumor diagnosis and treatment. Invest Radiol 27: 326–328

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaplan K, Hunter I, Durlach NI, Schodek DL, Rattner D (1995) A virtual environment for a surgical room of the future. Interactive technology and the new paradigm for healthcare. 1, ed, I.O.S. Press, San Diego, pp 161–167

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kernaghan SG (1982) Technology and the surgical suite: forest of instrumentation improves, but complicates, surgical practice. Hospitals 56: 101–105

    Google Scholar 

  9. Klebanoff G (1979) Operating-room design: an introduction. Bull Am Coll Surg 64: 6–10

    Google Scholar 

  10. Laufman H (1971) What's wrong with our operating rooms? Am J Surg 122: 332–343

    Google Scholar 

  11. Laufman H (1974) Architectural and engineering aspects of the operating room environment. Bull Soc Int Chir 33: 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  12. Laufman H (1994) Streamlining environmental safety in the operating room: a common bond between surgeons and hospital engineers. Health Facil Manag Ser 1-14

  13. Nora PF (1976) OR environment: a surgeon's view. Am Operating Room Nurse J 24: 266–267

    Google Scholar 

  14. Putsep E (1973) Planning of surgical centres. Lloyd-Luke, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Quebbeman EJ (1993) Preparing the operating room. Care of the surgical patient: a publication of the committee on pre and postoperative care. Sci Am 5: 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers P (1982) Operating theatre feature: some guidelines. Hosp Dev 10: 30–32

    Google Scholar 

  17. Slaney G (1984) Foreword. The design and utilization of operating theatres. Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. Smith H, McIntosh P, Sverisdottir A, Robertson C (1993) Improved coordination makes for faster work. Ergonomic analysis of a trauma resuscitation room. Prof Nurse 8: 711–715

    Google Scholar 

  19. Smith W (1960) Planning the surgical suite. F. W. Dodge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wilder RJ, Williams GR (1981) The ceiling-retractable service column [letter]. JAMA 246: 1403–1404

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Central University of Ecuador, Gonzalo Serrano 356, Quito, Equador

    A. Alarcon

  2. Department of Surgery, Davis Medical Center, University of California, 4301 X Street, Rm. 2310, 95817, Sacramento, CA, USA

    R. Berguer

Authors
  1. A. Alarcon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Berguer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alarcon, A., Berguer, R. A comparison of operating room crowding between open and laparoscopic operations. Surg Endosc 10, 916–919 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00188483

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00188483

Key words

Search

Navigation