Anales de la RANM

302 A N A L E S R A N M R E V I S T A F U N D A D A E N 1 8 7 9 ERGONOMÍA EN LA CIRUGÍA GINECOLÓGICA ROBÓTICA Coronado Martín PJ, et al. An RANM. 2022;139(03): 294 - 302 12. Craven R, Franasiak J, Mosaly P, Gehrig PA. Er- gonomic deficits in robotic gynecologic oncology surgery: a need for intervention. J Minim Invasive Gynecol [Internet]. 2013; 20(5): 648-655. 13. Eisenberg D, Vidovszky TJ, Lau J, Guiroy B, Rivas H. Comparison of robotic and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery systems in a suturing and knot tying task. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2013; 27(9): 3182-3186. 14. Zihni AM, Ohu I, Cavallo JA, Ousley J, Cho S, Awad MM. FLS tasks can be used as an ergonomic discriminator between laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Surg Endosc [Internet]. 2014; 28(8): 2459- 2465. 15. Gueli Alletti S, Chiantera V, Arcuri G, et al. Intro- ducing the New Surgical Robot HUGO™ RAS: Sys- tem Description and Docking Settings for Gyneco- logical Surgery. Front Oncol. 2022 Jun 9;12:898060. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.898060. Si desea citar nuestro artículo: Coronado Martín PJ, Gracia M, Ramirez Mena M, Bellón del Amo M, García-Santos J, Fasero Laiz M. El bienestar del cirujano gi- necológico mejora con la cirugía asistida por robot. An RANM. 2022;139(03): 294– 302. DOI: 10.32440/ar.2022.139.03. rev10