A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INNOVATIVE NEEDLE HOLDER WITH BETTER ERGONOMICS VS CONVENTIONAL NEEDLE HOLDER FOR OPEN SURGERY

Abstract

Standard ring-handled needle holders can cause hand fatigue, wrist discomfort, and reduced suturing efficiency during prolonged use. A modified ergonomic needle holder was designed and fabricated for open surgical suturing by retaining the conventional serrated jaws and shank while replacing the circular finger rings with elongated rectangular handles and incorporating a centrally positioned locking mechanism. The modified configuration was developed to facilitate palming, distribute force across a broader area of the hand, reduce repetitive finger movements, and improve ergonomics during open surgical suturing. This prospective, comparative, analytical study involved 100 open surgical procedures conducted over 12 months, with half performed using a conventional needle holder and half using the innovative instrument. Precision, ease of handling, fatigue, suturing time, needle slippage, muscle strain, wrist pain, finger strain, and efficiency were compared. Independent-samples t-tests and chi-square tests were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The suturing-time distribution differed significantly between the instruments, with a higher proportion of procedures completed within 30 seconds using the innovative needle holder (p = 0.03). The innovative instrument also produced significantly lower fatigue scores than the conventional instrument (3.8 ± 1.1 vs. 6.5 ± 1.2; p = 0.04). Significant reductions were also observed in muscle strain, wrist pain, and finger strain. The mean efficiency score was significantly higher with the innovative design (0.22 ± 0.04 vs. 0.15 ± 0.03; p = 0.04). Needle slippage was less frequent and precision scores were higher, although these differences were not statistically significant. The innovative needle holder improved ergonomic comfort and procedural efficiency without compromising suturing precision. Larger multicenter studies are needed to evaluate its long-term effectiveness and wider clinical applicability.