The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic requires wearing face masks in many areas of our daily life; hence, the potential side effects of mask use are discussed. Therefore, the present study explores whether wearing a medical face mask (MedMask) affects physical working capacity (PWC). Secondary, the influence of a filtering facepiece mask with exhalation valve class 2 (FFP2exhal) and a cotton fabric mask (community mask) on PWC was also investigated. Furthermore, corresponding physiological and subjective responses when wearing face masks as well as a potential moderating role of subjects’ individual cardiorespiratory fitness and sex on face mask effects were analyzed. Thirty-nine subjects (20 males, 19 females) with different cardiorespiratory fitness levels participated in a standardized submaximal bicycle ergometer protocol using either a MedMask, FFP2exhal, community mask, or no mask (control) on four days, in randomized order. PWC130 and PWC150 as the mechanical load at the heart rates of 130 and 150 beats per minute were measured as well as transcutaneous carbon dioxide partial pressure, saturation of peripheral capillary oxygen, breathing frequency, blood pressure, perceived respiratory effort, and physical exhaustion. Using the MedMask did not lead to changes in PWC or physiological response compared to control. Neither appeared changes exceeding normal ranges when the FFP2exhal or community mask was worn. Perceived respiratory effort was up to one point higher (zero-to-ten Likert scale) when using face masks (p < 0.05) compared to control. Sex and cardiorespiratory fitness were not factors influencing the effects of the masks. The results of the present study provide reason to believe that wearing face masks for infection prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic does not pose relevant additional physical demands on the user although some more respiratory effort is required.
Purpose Conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) imposes an increased risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Technical innovations, such as robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS), may provide ergonomic benefits. We compare the surgeon`s work-related demands of CLS vs RALS for benign hysterectomies. Methods Five specialists (3 females, 2 males) each performed four RALS and four CLS as part of their daily clinical routine. During the surgical procedures, muscular demands were assessed by bipolar surface electromyograms of the descendent trapezius, extensor digitorum and flexor carpi radialis muscles as well as cardio-vascular demands by electrocardiography, and neck, arm and torso posture by gravimetrical position sensors. Additionally, the subjects rated their level of perceived workload (NASA TLX questionnaire with 6 dimension) and musculoskeletal discomfort (11-point Likert-scale, 0–10). Results Muscular demands of the trapezius and flexor carpi radialis muscles were lower with RALS but extensor digitorum demands increased. Cardiovascular demands were about 9 heart beats per minute (bpm) lower for RALS compared to CLS with a rather low median level for both surgical techniques (RALS = 84 bpm; CLS 90 bpm). The posture changed in RALS with an increase in neck and torso flexion, and a reduction in abduction and anteversion position of the right arm. The perceived workload was lower in the physical demands dimension but higher in the mental demands dimension during RALS. Subjective musculoskeletal discomfort was rare during both surgical techniques. Conclusions This explorative study identified several potential ergonomic benefits related to RALS which now can be verified by studies using hypothesis testing designs. However, potential effects on muscular demands in the lower arm extensor muscles also have to be addressed in such studies.
Background: Undesirable side effects from wearing face masks during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continue to be discussed and pose a challenge to occupational health and safety when recommending safe application. Only few studies examined the effects of continuously wearing a face mask for more than one hour. Therefore, the influence of wearing a medical mask (MedMask) and a filtering facepiece class II respirator (FFP2) on the physiological and subjective outcomes in the course of 130 min of manual work was exploratively investigated. Physical work load and cardiorespiratory fitness levels were additionally considered as moderating factors. Methods: Twenty-four healthy subjects (12 females) from three different cardiorespiratory fitness levels each performed 130 min of simulated manual work with light and medium physical workload using either no mask, a MedMask or FFP2. Heart rate, transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide partial pressure (PtcO2, PtcCO2) as well as perceived physical exertion and respiratory effort were assessed continuously at discrete time intervals. Wearing comfort of the masks were additionally rated after the working period. Results: There was no difference in time-dependent changes of physiological outcomes when using either a MedMask or a FFP2 compared to not wearing a mask. A stronger increase over time in perceived respiratory effort occurred when the face masks were worn, being more prominent for FFP2. Physical workload level and cardiorespiratory fitness level were no moderating factors and higher wearing comfort was rated for the MedMask. Conclusion: Our results suggest that using face masks during light and medium physical manual work does not induce detrimental side effects. Prolonged wearing episodes appeared to increase respiratory effort, but without affecting human physiology in a clinically relevant way.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.