Design Principles and Human Factors in Modern Operating Rooms: Impact of Layout, Robotic Integration and Work-Related Stress
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/bjhr.1302.20117Keywords:
Operating room design, Robotic-assisted surgery, Surgical workflow, Flow disruptions, Human factors, Work-related stressAbstract
The operating room (OR) is a high-risk clinical environment in which spatial configuration, technological integration, and human performance interact to influence surgical safety. The rapid expansion of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has significantly transformed traditional OR design requirements, introducing increased equipment density, altered team positioning, and modified communication patterns. Empirical evidence indicates that suboptimal layout, inefficient zoning, and workspace constraints contribute to flow disruptions, cognitive workload, and work-related stress. Robotic systems amplify these vulnerabilities by increasing technological footprint and docking complexity. Flow disruptions, particularly within transitional zones, represent persistent latent conditions affecting workflow continuity. Stress in surgical settings has been associated with impaired communication and performance, suggesting that environmental inefficiencies may indirectly influence safety outcomes. This review synthesizes current evidence on OR spatial configuration, equipment integration, workflow interruptions, and stress in robotic surgery. The findings support a systems-based, human-centered approach to operating room design to optimize efficiency, resilience, and team performance in technologically advanced surgical environments.
References
Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM. Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery. 2007;142:658–665.
Palmer G, Abernathy JH, Swinton G, Allison D, Greenstein J, Shappell S, et al. Realizing improved patient care through human-centered operating room design: a human factors methodology for observing flow disruptions in the cardiothoracic operating room. Anesthesiology. 2013;119(5):1066–1077.
Randell R, Honey S, Hindmarsh J, Alvarado N, Greenhalgh J, Pearman A, et al. A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2017;5(20):1–140.
Cao CG, Taylor H. Effects of new technology on the operating room team. In: Khalid HM, Helander MG, Yeo AW, editors. Work with computing systems. Damai Sciences; 2004. p. 309–
Kanji F, Cohen T, Alfred M, Caron A, Lawton S, Savage S, et al. Room size influences flow in robotic-assisted surgery. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(15):7984.
Catchpole KR, Hallett E, Curtis S, Mirchi T, Souders CP, Anger JT. Diagnosing barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery. Ergonomics. 2018;61(1):26–39.
Cofran L, Cohen T, Alfred M, Kanji F, Choi E, Savage S, et al. Barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery docking. Surg Endosc. 2021;36(1):206–215.
Moorthy K, Munz Y, Sarker SK, Darzi A. Objective assessment of technical skills in surgery. BMJ. 2003;327(7422):1032–1037.
Wetzel CM, Kneebone RL, Woloshynowych M, Nestel D, Moorthy K, Kidd J, et al. The effects of stress on surgical performance. Am J Surg. 2006;191(1):5–10.
Grantcharov PD, Boillat T, Elkabany S, Wac K, Rivas H. Acute mental stress and surgical performance. BJS Open. 2019;3(1):119–125.
Paré G, Trudel MC, Jaana M, Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Inf Manag. 2015;52(2):183–199.
Ahmad N, Hussein AA, Cavuoto L, Sharif M, Allers JC, Hinata N, et al. Ambulatory movements, team dynamics and interactions during robot-assisted surgery. BJU Int. 2016;118(1):132–139.
Catchpole K, Perkins C, Bresee C, Solnik MJ, Sherman JF, Fritch J, et al. Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:3749–
Yu D, Dural C, Morrow MMB, Yang L, Collins JW, Hallbeck S, et al. Intraoperative workload in robotic surgery assessed by wearable motion tracking sensors and questionnaires. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:877–886.
Weber J, Catchpole K, Becker AJ, Schlenker B, Weigl M. Effects of flow disruptions on mental workload and surgical performance in robotic-assisted surgery. World J Surg. 2018;42(11):3599–3607.
Klein MI, Mouraviev V, Craig C, Salamone L, Plerhoples TA, Wren SM, et al. Mental stress experienced by first year residents and expert surgeons with robotic and laparoscopic surgery interfaces. J Robot Surg. 2014;8(2):149–155.
Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JR, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B(8):1033–1042. Scholar Publishing
Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(4):1132–1141.
Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS, Ibrahim MS, Ayuob A, Haddad FS. The learning curve of roboticarm assisted acetabular cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2021;31(3):311–
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Laura Cormio, Luigi Cormio, Cristian Cannella
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
