ArticleActa neurochirurgica2021
Three-dimensional high-definition exoscope (Kestrel View II) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a valid alternative to operative microscope-assisted surgery.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exoscope versus microscope in spine surgery: A meta-analysis based on procedure-specific subgroup analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Advantages of 3-dimensional exoscope-assisted anterior cervical spine surgery: A meta-analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Pooled it
- High-Definition 4K-3D Exoscope in Spine Surgery: A Single-Center Experience and Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Comparative analysis of exoscope-assisted spine surgery versus operating microscope: A systematic review.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Review
- Implementation of a three-dimensional (3D) robotic digital microscope (AEOS) in spinal procedures.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Comparison of Percutaneous Endoscopic Cervical Keyhole Foraminotomy versus Microscopic Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Single Level Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy.International journal of general medicine · 2022Article
- Clinical comparison of three-dimensional exoscope vs. operative microscope in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective case-control study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOperative microscope (OM) has greatly advanced modern spine surgery, but remains limited by several drawbacks. Therefore, a three-dimensional (3D) high-definition (HD) exoscope (EX) (Kestrel View II, Mataka Kohli, Japan) system has been developed and used as an alternative to the OM. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the perioperative data and clinical outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedure with either an EX or OM.
methodsForty-eight patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) underwent ACDF assisted by the EX or OM between January 2019 and December 2019. We collected and compared data on operative time, intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospitalization stay, complications, and clinical outcomes between the two groups. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by using visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, the recovery rate of JOA scores, and Odom criteria.
resultsThe operative time in the EX group was significantly shorter than that in the OM group (P < 0.05). The VAS and JOA scores were significantly improved in both groups after surgery (P < 0.05). In addition, the VAS scores in the EX group were significantly lower than those in the OM group at 1 week postoperatively (P < 0.05). The good-to-excellent outcome rates were 90.48 and 88.89% in the EX group and OM group, respectively, whereas the complication occurrence rates of the EX group and OM group were 4.76 and 11.11%, respectively.
conclusionsEX-assisted and OM-assisted ACDF resulted in similar clinical outcomes for CSM, while EX-assisted surgery may be related to a short operative time and fewer complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34524522What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.