<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJN</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Nursing</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-5336</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojn.2022.1210045</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJN-120413</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  A Longitudinal Study of Patient Reported Positioning-Related Discomfort and Pain after Laparoscopic Surgery in the Lithotomy Position
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ann-Chatrin</surname><given-names>Linqvist Leonardsen</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Egil</surname><given-names>Bekkhus</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kristin</surname><given-names>E. Næss Tvete</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kristin</surname><given-names>E. Næss Tvete</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Trine</surname><given-names>Hovland</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dennis</surname><given-names>Haglund</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Astrid</surname><given-names>Wevling</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Health and Welfare, &amp;amp;#216;stfold University College, Halden, Norway</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>&amp;amp;#216;stfold Hospital Trust, Gr&amp;amp;#229;lum, Norway</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Surgery, &amp;amp;#216;stfold Hospital Trust, Gr&amp;amp;#229;lum, Norway</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>29</day><month>09</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>10</issue><fpage>650</fpage><lpage>664</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>25,</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>11,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>14,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Background: Our hypothesis was that only established and persistent injuries and complications after positioning in the Trendelenburg position are reported and detected, despite that patients may have great discomfort after surgery. 
  Aim: The aim of this study was to explore patient reported discomfort, pain and functional decrease two hours, 24 hours and four weeks after laparoscopic resection of the colon in the prone lithotomy position, as well as factors potentially associated with reported pain. 
  Methods: A longitudinal self-report questionnaire study was conducted at three time-points. 
  Results: A total of 37 patients responded. Findings show that patients mostly reported pain in relation to the surgical area, but also related to other areas that may be linked to positioning. 
  Conclusion: Even though patients reported mild pain, several of the patients still reported this, four weeks postoperatively, as well as some functional decrease. Our findings support the need to focus on preventing positioning injuries.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Positioning Injuries</kwd><kwd> Operating Room Nursing</kwd><kwd> Pain</kwd><kwd> Discomfort</kwd><kwd> Functional Decrease</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Every surgical procedure requires positioning the patient so the surgeon has optimal access to the surgical field, also enabling placement of necessary equipment for anesthesia and surgery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref2">2</xref>]. Patients undergoing surgery are immobile and unable to change position when exposed to prolonged pressure, because of sedation and anesthesia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref3">3</xref>]. Hence, positioning injuries are a known surgical complication that can result in significant patient morbidity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref4">4</xref>]. Injuries may occur due to pressure against nerves or tissue caused by inadequate positioning, inadequate padding, or improper body alignment. The locations and types of potential injuries such as stretching, compression, or pressure ulcers, are closely related to the surgical position. The length of the procedure as well as patient related risk factors such as weight, age, or frailty, are associated with an increased risk of positioning injuries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref7">7</xref>].</p><p>The lithotomy position is used for a variety of open and endoscopic surgeries in the pelvic area. The patient is lying on the back with the legs flexed 90 degrees at the hips, and knees bent at 70 to 90 degrees, left arm abducted 90 degrees and right arm along the body. Most commonly, padded foot rests or stirrups attached to the operation table are used to support the legs. In gastric surgery, a prone lithotomy position (Trendelenburg) is recommended, where the patient is positioned in a 15 - 30 degree incline with the feet elevated above the head [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref7">7</xref>]. Both the lithotomy and the Trendeleburg position have been associated with positioning injuries. For example, neurologic injuries related to the lithotomy position may affect the femoral, sciatic, and common peroneal nerves, or even lead to acute compartment syndrome. Trendelenburg positioning may cause potentially life-threatening complications of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Postoperative loss of vision has also been reported [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref9">9</xref>].</p><p>Patient reported experience is an acknowledged quality parameter, assumed to be less subjective than patient satisfaction [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref11">11</xref>]. Information about patient experiences gives an opportunity to improve health services, meet patient expectations, and administer and monitor health service provision [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref12">12</xref>]. Positioning-related injuries seem to be under-reported [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref14">14</xref>]. Moreover, studies mainly focus on treatment-requiring complications, while research on longitudinal ailments or discomfort is lacking [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref15">15</xref>]. According to our experience as operating room nurses/nurse anaesthetists, operating room personnel receive little or no information from the postoperative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and postoperative surgical ward units regarding patients’ experience of pain or discomfort that could be associated with the surgical positioning.</p><p>Positioning the patient is a shared responsibility between surgeons, anesthesia personnel (anaesthesiologists and nurse anaesthetist) and operating room nurses. Nevertheless, the patient’s surgical positioning remains an important procedure in intraoperative nursing care, and nurses most commonly are responsible for providing necessary equipment and paddings, as well as monitoring and observation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref17">17</xref>]. Increased knowledge about patient reported experiences with discomfort, pain and/or functional decrease that may be linked to positioning may discover areas that need emphasis perioperatively to prevent such adverse events.</p><p>Our hypothesis was that only established and persistent injuries and complications are reported and detected, despite the fact that patients may have great discomfort after surgery. Consequently, the aim of this study was to explore patient reported discomfort, pain and functional decrease at two hours, 24 hours and four weeks after laparoscopic resection of the colon in the prone lithotomy position. In addition, we aimed to assess possible associations between factors such as gender, age, weight, height, American Association of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification, length of surgery/length of procedure and pain score.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>The study had a longitudinal, quantitative design, utilizing a self-report questionnaire to patients at two hours, 24 hours and four weeks postoperatively. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies were used [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref18">18</xref>].</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Setting and Participants</title><p>The study was conducted in a hospital in Southeastern, Norway, with a catchment area of 320.000 inhabitants. We used a strategic, consecutive sampling method. All patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria, undergoing a low anterior laparoscopic resection of the colon in the prone lithotomy position, in the period May 2020-January 2021, were invited to participate. Inclusion criteria were; patients above 18 years old, able to provide their oral and written consent to participate, without any cognitive dysfunction or dementia, and able to read and understand Norwegian language. Exclusion criteria were patients with an established neuro-muscular disease. Three of the invited patients rejected to participate.</p><p>Results from a study on robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the lithotomy/Trendelenburg position found that patients had a mean postoperative pain score of 3.6 (standard deviation, SD = 1.2) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref19">19</xref>]. With pain score as primary outcome, minimal difference of interest in pain score = 1.2, assuming a level of significance of 5%, and power = 80%, a one-sided calculation indicated that we would need to include a total of 32 patients, as calculated by a statistician.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Instruments and Procedure</title><p>Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic resection of the colon were informed both oral and in writing (consent-form) about the study and the opportunity to participate when attending a preoperative evaluation appointment in hospital, a few weeks before surgery. Patients delivered their signed consent-form at the day of surgery.</p><p>Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire at three time-points:</p><p>T1: two hours postoperatively, in the PACU</p><p>T2: 20 - 24 hours postoperatively, in the postoperative surgical ward</p><p>T3: four weeks postoperatively, at home</p><p>The questionnaire consisted of three parts:</p><p>1) The validated self-report short form of the “McGill Pain Questionnaire” (MPQ), the SFMPQ, one of the most widely used multidimensional pain scales in the world (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.75 - 0.91). The SFMPQ consists of 15 descriptors of pain. Each descriptor is ranked on an intensity scale, where 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref20">20</xref>]. The SFMPQ also included a body-map, where participants can mark where they experience pain, readness or swelling.</p><p>2) A numerical rating scale (NRS). This is an 11-point scale from 0 - 10, where no pain is NRS = 0, mild pain is NRS = 1 - 3, moderate pain NRS = 4 - 6 and severe pain NRS = 7 - 10 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref22">22</xref>].</p><p>3) Information about patients’ age, civil status (married/single/widow(-er)/in a relationship), living arrangements (living alone or not), educational level (elementary school/high school/university or university college), and work situation (working or not).</p><p>At T3 the questionnaire also included functional status on ten different activities (exhausting, moderate, carrying groceries, walk several stairs, walk one stair, squat, walk over two kilometers, walk some hundred meters, walk hundred meters, get dressed) based on a questionnaire utilized by the Norwegian Association of Pain. Here, variables have been chosen based on their prognostic value in previous studies investigating generic prognostic factors across different pain locations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref23">23</xref>]. The patients’ functional level was measured on a three point scale, where 1 = yes, limits me a lot, 2 = yes, limits me some, 3 = do not limit me at all.</p><p>The questionnaire was paper-based, and followed the patients throughout their pathway in hospital. Study nurses assisted in completing and/or collecting the questionnaires. Four weeks after discharge, telephone interviews based on the T3 questionnaire were conducted by the researchers.</p><p>In addition, information about the patients’ body weight, height (to be able to calculate BMI), American Association of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification and length of surgery was registered in the patients’ paper-based questionnaire by study nurses peroperatively.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Analysis</title><p>Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 26. No methods for calculation of missing data were used, and missing data were excluded from the analyses. Frequencies were used to present characteristics of the study sample. Due to data not being normally distributed, continuous variables were summarised by their median standard deviation. All tests were two‐sided and used a significance level of 0.05. The paired-samples t-test was used to compare scores at T1 and T2, and T2 and T3 respectively. A univariate linear regression model using “current pain” as dependent variable, and gender, age, ASA-classification, weight, height, length of surgery and length of procedure as covariates was run to explore for associations.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Ethics</title><p>The study was conducted in-line with principles for ethical research in the Declaration of Helsinki [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref24">24</xref>], and based on anonymity, confidentiality, and willing, informed, written consent to participate.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>In total, 37 patients participated in the study at all timepoints; 40 at T1, 42 at T2 and 37 at T3. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> gives an overview of study participants’ characteristics.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Pain Scores Longitudinally</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> gives an overview of participants’ reported pain and location at the three different timepoints.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Descriptives of the study participants (n = 42)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Gender (male, n=)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >19</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Weight (mean)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81 (18.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Height (mean)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >175 (9.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ASA (n=) I II III</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 29 10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Civil status (n=) Married Single Widowed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 5 6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Living alone (n=) Yes No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 32</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Level of education (n=) Primary school High school University/university college</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 25 8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Is working Yes No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 31</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of surgery (minutes, mean)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >282 (128)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of procedure (minutes, mean)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >368 (135.8)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Standard deviation (SD) in parenthesis.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Patients’ reported pain and location at T1, T2 and T3 respectively</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >T1 (n = 40)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >T2 (n = 42)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >T3 (n = 37)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Current pain Mean (SD) Range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (2.2) 0 - 9*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (2.2) 0 - 7**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (2) 0 - 2***</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n=</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n=</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n=</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pain Chest Forehead Umbilicus Pelvic area Neck Back Gluteus Right shoulder Left shoulder</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 1 21 5 - 5 - - -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 1 17 8 1 4 4 6 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >- - 14 - 1 3 3 1 1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Read/swollen Yes No Location Forehead Umbilicus Gluteus Pelvic area Thigh (right) Right hand</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 36 1 1 1 - 1 -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 39 1 - - 1 - 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 35 - 1 - - - -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongest pain last month</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3 (3.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strongest pain last month, range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 - 7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Weakest pain last month</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3 (1.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Weakest pain last month, range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 - 3</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Pain scored on a scale from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst imaginary pain. *At T1, seven patients scored the current pain = 0, and 1 patient scored the current pain = 9. **At T2, 15 patients scored the current pain = 0, and three patients scored the current pain = 7. *** At T3, 18 patients scored the current pain = 0, and two patients scored the current pain = 2. T1 = two hours postoperatively, T2 = 20 - 24 hours postoperatively, T3 = Four weeks postoperatively. No significant differences were identified between T1 and T2, between T1 and T3, or between T2 and T3 as measured by the paired samples t-test.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows that the participants in average experienced limited pain at all time-points, even though the pain range was from 0 to 9 at T1, and from 0 to 7 at T2. The table also shows that the location of pain varied both between participants and between time-points.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Pain Characteristics Longitudinally</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> gives an overview of participants’ characterization of their experienced pain at the three time points.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> McGill pain scores. Number of participants characterizing pain at two hours (T1), 20 - 24 hours (T2) and four weeks (T3) postoperatively</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >T1 (n = 40), n =</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >T2 (n = 42), n=</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >T3 (n = 37), n=</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Throbbing pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 2 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 - 1 -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 - - -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shooting pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 3 -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 2 - -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 - - -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Stabbing pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 - 2 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 5 4 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 2 1 1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sharp pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 1 - -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38 2 2 -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 - - -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cramping pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 4 - 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 1 - 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 - - -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gnawing pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34 4 1 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 1 1 -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 - - -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hot-burning pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 1 1 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 3 2 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 - - -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Aching pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 7 9 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 3 9 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24 9 3 1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Heavy pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 1 3 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 1 3 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 1 - 1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tender pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 8 5 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 4 6 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 1 - 1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Splitting pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38 2 - -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 - 3 -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 - - -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tiring-exhausting pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 2 - 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 2 1 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 - 1 1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sickening pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 - - 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 2 - 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 1 1 -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fearful pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 1 - -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 2 - 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 - - -</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Punishing-cruel pain No pain Weak pain Moderate pain Strong pain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 1 - -</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 - - 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 - - -</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>No significant differences were identified between T1 and T2, between T1 and T3, or between T2 and T3 as measured by the paired samples t-test.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> shows that “aching pain” characterized the participants’ pain most frequently, followed by “tender pain”. Mostly, pain was reported to be weak.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Functional Decrease at Four Weeks</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> gives an overview of participants’ experienced functional decrease four weeks postoperatively.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> shows that even after four weeks, some of the participants experienced limitations in functional capacity. Most frequently, this was related to “exhausting activities”.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Factors Associated with Pain Scores</title><p>Running a multiple logistic regression model with “current pain” as dependent variable, and gender, age, ASA-classification, weight, height, length of surgery and length of procedure as covariates, we identified no significant associations, even when removing covariates one by one according to highest p-value. The model was run with “current pain” as dependent variable at T1, T2 and T3 respectively, identifying no significant associations.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>Initially, it may seem like patients most frequently reported no or mild discomfort, pain or functional decrease both two hours, 20 - 24 hours and four weeks postoperatively after laparoscopic resection of the colon in the prone lithotomy position. Neither gender, age, weight, height, American Association of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification, length of surgery or length of procedure were associated with patients’ current pain scores.</p><p>The most common area for reporting of pain at all time-points was, naturally, around the umbilicus, the surgical area. Two hours postoperatively (T1), five patients (13.5%) also reported of pain in the pelvic area and in the back, and one patient (2.7%) reported of readness/swelling around umbilicus, in the forehead, gluteus and thigh respectively. According to the US National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System, nonblanchable erythema is the first stage in identifying pressure ulcers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref25">25</xref>]. The readness still remained in one patients’ forehead 20 - 24 hours postoperatively, but was gone after four weeks. This readness may be due to pooling of blood in the head due to the prone position. The readness/swelling reported in the pelvic area and one patients’ pelvic area and another patients’ right hand may also suggest a consistent pressure added peroperatively, that could potentially have led to a pressure injury.</p><p>Even if patients reported an overall mild pain score, at T2 four patients (9.5%) also reported of pain in the chest area. We have not been able to identify any studies indicating pain or injuries in this area after laparoscopic surgery in the prone lithotomy position. This may be due to the insufflation of gas, which has been argued in several other studies: for example a study of pain characteristics after total laparoscopic hysterectomy found that 90% of all patients reported of</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Responses to the functional decrease questionnaire (n = 37)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Areas</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >n=</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Exhausting activities Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 15 16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moderate activities Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 5 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Carry things Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 6 29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Walk up several stairs Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 2 34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Walk up one stair Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 1 36</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >To bend down Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 9 27</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Walk two kilometers Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 13 20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Walk a few hundred meters Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 2 34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Walk hundred meters Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 1 36</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >To get washed Limits me a lot Limits me some Do not limit me at all</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >- 1 36</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>shoulder pain [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref26">26</xref>]. Another study on patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy found that shoulder tip pain was most at 24 h and gradually decreased thereafter [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref27">27</xref>], which may be supported by our findings showing that ten patients (23.8%) reported of pain in either the right or left shoulder at 20 - 24 hours postoperatively. A study from 2000 found that the incidence of shoulder tip pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy varies greatly with some studies reporting incidences as high as 30% - 50%. The authors argued that since type of pain, intensity, and duration of pain varied between different patients and was largely unpredictable, such pain is difficult to prevent [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref2">2</xref>]. The more worrying results are that 14 patients (37.8%) still reported pain in the surgical area four weeks postoperatively, even if the pain was rated as mild. Moreover, patients reported of mild pain the neck (n = 1), back (n = 3), gluteus (n = 3), right shoulder (n = 1) and left shoulder (n = 1) at this time-point. Earlier studies have reported of injuries on the femoral, sciatic, and common peroneal nerves due to the lithotomy position [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref10">10</xref>]. Unfortunately, we did not specify in the questionnaires that patients should reflect on whether they assumed their pain could be related to, or had ocurred after, the surgery. A review of studies on complications after robotic surgery in the Trendeleburg position showed that upper extremity nerve injury had an incidence of 0.25% - 1.8%, and lower extremity nerve injuries had an incidence of 0.3% - 2% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref28">28</xref>].</p><p>Even if patients reported their current pain as mild, the McGill score characterizing their pain was contradictory. For example, two patients (5.4%) reported of moderate/strong stabbing pain and tiring-exhausting pain, four patients (10.8%) reported of moderate/strong aching pain four weeks postoperatively. A systematic review comparing the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Visual Analougue Scale/VAS) and the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) for scoring of adult pain intensity found that the NRSs had better compliance, were the recommended tool and had good applicability relative to VAS/VRS [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref29">29</xref>]. In addition, the scoring on functional level indicated that patients experienced a decrease also four weeks postoperatively.</p><p>We could not identify any associations between pain score and factors such as gender, age, weight, height, American Association of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification, length of surgery or length of procedure. This contrasts earlier studies, indicating a correlation between e.g. case duration and positioning injuries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref22">22</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref30">30</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref31">31</xref>]. Al-Temimi et al. found that increasing age was associated with a protective effect (oR = 0.80 (95% Ci, 0.71 - 0.90)) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref32">32</xref>]. Moreover, functional status as measured by ASA classification has been associated with an increased risk of peripheral nerve injuries due to the lithotomy position [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref28">28</xref>].</p><p>Our findings indicate that the risk for positioning injuries is underappreciated. Zillioux and Krupski argue that surgeons should discuss the risk of such complications with their patients, and that operative teams should focus on preventing these [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref33">33</xref>]. S&#248;rensen et al. found that operating room nurses judged positioning of the patient as particularly difficult for the prone (438%), lithotomy (534%) and lateral positions (655%) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref34">34</xref>]. The authors concluded that there is a discrepancy between what positioning devices are available on the market and what is found in operation rooms. Preventing positioning injuries may decrease both mortality and morbidity, decreasing the risk of life-altering iatrogenic injuries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref35">35</xref>]. Operating room nurses have a responsibility both for positioning patients and for being familiar with the technological developments that may impact the preoperative handling of patients together with the surgical team [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref36">36</xref>]. Internationally, several tools for risk assessment for development of positioning injuries have been developed, for example the “Risk Assessment Scale for the Development of Injuries due to Surgical Positioning (ELPO)” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120413-ref21">21</xref>]. The ELPO includes information about surgery, case duration, anaesthesia, padding on the table, location of arms and legs, comorbidity and age. To our knowledge, such mapping tools are not in use nationally in Norway.</p>Limitations<p>Our study included a relatively small sample, and we did not identify any statistically significant associations. This may limit the generalizability of our findings. In addition, this could be a threat to utilizing multiple logistic regression models. Still, we reached the calculated sample size. In addition, the study was conducted in one hospital, and one surgical ward. Still, this may also be a strength, since the personnel, the positioning equipment available, and the surgical and anaesthesiological procedures were similar in all patients. We utilized validated tools for self reporting. In retrospect, we see that we should have emphasized that patients should relate their assessments to the surgical procedure and also to their habitual condition. Including observations of the surgical procedure and positioning may have increased our understanding of the reported pain/discomfort in areas such as the chest or the hand.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In this study, we did not identify any associations between factors such as gender, age, weight, height, ASA classification, length of surgery/length of procedure and pain score. However, we identified areas that should be focused on to prevent positioning injuries in the future. Even though positioning injuries are not reported, patients may experience pain, discomfort and functional decrease due to the positioning. Operating room nurses may experience that they are responsible for preventing such adverse events, but this is a mutual responsibility in the surgical team.</p><sec id="s5_1"><title>5.1. Recommendations for Clinical Practice</title><p>We hope this article will increase the surgical teams’ knowledge about and focus on positioning injuries after surgery in the lithotomy position. We recommend implementation of a tool for assessment of risk for positioning injuries, as well as systematic mapping of patients postoperatively for pain, discomfort and/or functional decrease in areas distant from the surgical area. Implementation of a digital self-report tool, for example an application (app) for postoperative surveillance of patients may also be appropriate to be able to detect symptoms other than established injuries that need treatment.</p></sec><sec id="s5_2"><title>5.2. Recommendations for Education</title><p>Our findings support the need to focus on positioning and prevention of injuries during education of operating room nurses, and also members of the surgical team. Risk assessment tools may also be implemented in the operating room nurses’ curricula.</p></sec><sec id="s5_3"><title>5.3. Recommendations for Future Research</title><p>We suggest that future research focuses on newly implemented positioning due to new surgical techniques such as robotic surgery in the steep Trendeleburg position. Longitudinal studies are needed. In addition, combining methodological approaches such as observations and surveys may be appropriate.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>Egil Bekkhus is acknowledged for contributing in the data collection process. Brita Fosser Olsen is acknowledged for contributing with input in the planning of the study.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Leonardsen, A.-C.L., Bekkhus, E., Tvete, K.E.N., Hovland, T., Haglund, D. and Wevling, A. (2022) A Longitudinal Study of Patient Reported Positioning-Related Discomfort and Pain after Laparoscopic Surgery in the Lithotomy Position. Open Journal of Nursing, 12, 650-664. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2022.1210045</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.120413-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Heizenroth, P. (2015) Positioning the Patient for Surgery. In: Trothrock, J., Ed., Alexanders’ Care of the Patient in Surgery, 15th Edition, Elsevier Mosby, St Louis, 155-185.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Engels, D., Austin, M., McNichol, L., Fenc, J., Gupta, S. and Kazi, H. (2016) Pressure Ulcers: Factors Contributing to Their Development in the OR. AORN Journal, 103, 271-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2016.01.008</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nilsson, U. (2013) Intraoperative Positioning of Patients under General Anesthesia and the Risk of Postoperative Pain and Pressure Ulcers. Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing, 28, 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2012.09.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Welch, M.B. Patient Positioning for Surgery and Anesthesia in Adults.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adjei, R. (2010) The Importance of Correct Patient Positioning in Theatres and Implications of Mal-Positioning. Journal of Perioperative Practice, 20, 143-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/175045891002000403</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rosen, H., Bergh, I., Lundman, B. and M&amp;#229;rtensson, L. (2010) Patients’ Experiences and Perceived Causes of Persisting Discomfort Following Day Surgery. BMC Nursing, 6, Article No. 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6955-9-16</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bennicoff, G. (2010) Perioperative Care of the Morbidly Obese Patient on the Lithotomy Position. AORN Journal, 92, 297-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2010.04.016</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kwee, M., Yik-Hong, H. and Rozen, W. (2015) The Prone Poristion During Surgery and Its Complications: A Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines. International Surgery, 100, 292-303. https://doi.org/10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00256.1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Grondahl, V.A., Karlsson, I., Hall-Lord, M.L., Appelgren, J. and Wilde-Larsson, B. (2011) Quality of Care from Patients’ Perspective: Impact of the Combination of Person-Related and External Objective Care Conditions. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 2540-2551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03810.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Salisbury, C., Wallace, M. and Montgomery, A. (2010) Patient Experience and Satisfaction in Primary Care: Secondary Analysis Using Multilevel Modelling. BMJ, 341, Article No. c5004. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Abri, R. and Al-Balushi, A. (2014) Patient Satisfaction Survey as a Tool towards Quality Improvement. Oman Medical Journal, 29, 3-7. https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2014.02</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wik, A., Torvik, R., Vinsnes, A., Hassel, N., Johnsen, G. and M&amp;#229;rvik, R. (2009) Forekomst av neuralgiforme symptomer etter laparoskopisk gastrisk bypass. Sykepleien Forskning, 4, 270-276. https://doi.org/10.4220/sykepleienf.2009.0137</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Eteuati, J., Hiscock, R., Hastie, I., Hayes, I. and Jones, I. (2013) Brachial Plexopathy in Laparoscopic-Assisted Rectal Surgery: A Case Series. Techniques in Coloproctology, 17, 293-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0920-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Codd, R., Evans, M., Sagar, P. and Williams, G. (2013) A Systematic Review of Peripheral Nerve Injury Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Colorectal Disease, 15, 278-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12012</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Winger, A. and Leegaard, M. (2016) Smerter. In: Heggestad, A. and Knutstad, U., Eds., Sentrale begreper og fenomener i klinisk sykepleie, Cappelen Damm, Oslo, 172-197.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bouyer-Ferullo, S. (2013) Preventing Perioperative Peripheral Nerve Injuries. AORN Journal, 97, 110-124.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2012.10.013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">von Elm, E., Altman, D., Egger, M., Pocock, S., Gotzsche, P., Vandenbroucke, J., et al. (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. Lancet, 370, 1453-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gezginci, E., Ozkaptan, O., Yalzin, S., Akin, Y., Rassweiler, J. and Gozen, A. (2015) Postoperative Pain and Neuromuscular Complications Associated with Patient Positioning after Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Non-Placebo and Non-Randomized Study. International Urology and Nephrology, 47, 1635-1641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-015-1088-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Melzack, R. and Katz, J. (2001) The McGill Pain Questionaire: Appraisal and Current Status. In: Turk, D. and Melzack, R., Eds., Handbook of Pain Measurement, Guilford Press, New York, 35-52.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gerbershagen, H.J., Rothaug, J., Kalkman, C.J. and Meissner, W. (2011) Determination of Moderate-to-Severe Postoperative Pain on the Numeric Rating Scale: A Cut-Off Point Analysis Applying Four Different Methods. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 107, 619-626. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer195</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Breivik, H., Borchgrevink, P., Allen, S., Rosseland, L., Romundstad, L., Breivik Hals, E., Kvarstein, G. and Stubhaug, A. (2008) Assessment of Pain. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 101, 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aen103</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Valentin, G., Pilegaard, M., Vaegter, H., Rosendal, M., Ortenblad, L., Vaeggemose, U. and Christensen, R. (2016) Prognostic Factors for Disability and Sick Leave in Patients with Subacute Non-Malignant Pain: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies. BMJ Open, 6, Article ID: e007616. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007616</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Declaration of Helsinki-Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Edsberg, L., Black, J., Goldberg, M., McNichol, L., Moore, L. and Sieggreen, M. (2016) Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 43, 585-597. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000000281</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Choi, J., Kang, K., Song, M., Seok, S., Kim, Y. and Kim, J. (2016) Pain Characteristics after Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 13, 562-568. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.15875</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dey, A. and Malik, V. (2015) Shoulder Tip Pain Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy—A Randomized Control Study to Determine the Cause. Indian Journal of Surgery, 77, 381-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-013-0849-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mills, J., Burris, M., Warburton, D., Conaway, M., Schenkman, N. and Krupski, T. (2013) Positioning Injuries Associated with Robotic Assisted Urological Surgery. The Journal of Urology, 190, 580-584.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hjermstad, M., Fayers, P., Hugen, D., Caraceni, A., Hanks, G., Fainsinger, R., Aass, N. and Kaasa, S. (2011) Studies Comparing Numeric Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales and Visual Analogue Scales for Assessment of Pain Intensity in Adults: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 41, 1073-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gelpi-Hammerschmidt, F., Tinay, I. and Allard, C. (2016) The Contemporary Incidence and Sequale of Rhabdomyolysis Following Extirpative Renal Surgery: A Population Based Analysis. The Journal of Urology, 195, 399-405.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Velchuru, V., Domajnko, B. and De Souza, A. (2014) Obesity Increases the Risk of Postoperative Peripheral Neuropathy after Minimally Invasive Colon and Rectal Surgery. Diseases of the Colon &amp; Rectum, 57, 187-193. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000037</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Al-Temimi, M., Chandrasekaran, B. and Phelan, M. (2017) Incidence, Risk Factors and Trends of Motor Peripheral Nerve Injury after Colorectal Surgery: Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. Diseases of the Colon &amp; Rectum, 60, 318-325. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000744</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zillioux, J. and Krupski, T. (2017) Patient Positioning During Minimally Invasive Surgery: What Is Current Best Practice? Robotic Surgery: Research and Reviews, 4, 69-76. https://doi.org/10.2147/RSRR.S115239</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">S&amp;#248;rensen, E., Kusk, K. and Gr&amp;#248;nkj&amp;#230;r, M. (2015) Operating Room Nurses’ Positioning of Anesthetized Surgical Patients. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25, 690-698. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13000</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Woodfin, K., Johnson, C., Parker, R., Mikach, C., Johnson, M. and McMullan, S. (2018) Use of a Novel Memory Aid to Educate Perioperative Team Members of Proper Patient Positioning Technique. AORN Journal, 107, 325-332. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.12075</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120413-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bj&amp;#248;ro, B., Mykkeltveit, I., Rust&amp;#248;en, T., Altinbas, B., R&amp;#248;ise, O. and Bentsen, S. (2020) Intraoperative Peripheral Nerve Injury Related to Lithotomy Positioning with Steep Trendeleburg in Patients Undergoing Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery—A Systematic Review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76, 490-503. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14271</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>