Why is this study important? 

Data quantifying the ergonomic toll of interventional procedures are scarce. ERGO-CATH (Ergonomics in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory) was a single-center, prospective study evaluating ergonomic strain on interventional cardiologists.  
 

What question was this study supposed to answer? 

• Twenty operators (38% female) with a mean age of 40.7 years were studied. Inertial monitoring units and surface electromyography electrodes were placed on the cervical, thoracic, torso-pelvic, and lumbar regions of the operators.  
• Radiation was measured by a real-time dose monitor system.  
• Analyses were stratified by the use of traditional lead versus a lead-less (Rampart) approach. The primary endpoint was % time spent in high-risk positions (+/- 20°). 

What did the study show? 

• Interventional cardiologists, particularly the cervical spine, are in high-risk positions for long periods of time. Novel lead-less solutions may reduce axial spinal loads. 
• The time spent in a high-risk position for the overall cohort was: 35.8% (cervical axial rotation), 15.6% (cervical flexion), and 5.7% (thoracic flexion). 
• Stratified by the use of traditional lead versus lead-less approach revealed a similar percentage of time spent in high-risk positions: cervical axial rotation (lead: 35.9% versus lead-less 35.6%) and thoracic flexion (lead: 6.4% versus lead-less: 4.4%). 
• The mean radiation for the traditional lead was 55.8mrem versus 0.5mrem for the lead-less approach (p > 0.01).