ArticleFrontiers in surgery2021
Evaluation of 3D Robotic-Guided Exoscopic Visualization in Microneurosurgery.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exoscope-Assisted Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review From Basic to Complex Pathologies.Cureus · 2025Review
- In Situ Light-Source Delivery During 5-Aminulevulinic Acid-Guided High-Grade Glioma Resection: Spatial, Functional and Oncological Informed Surgery.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Exoscope and Supermicrosurgery: Pros and Cons of 3D Innovation in Lymphatic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Second-Generation Wide-Field Visualization Devices for 5-ALA-Induced Fluorescence and Concepts for Validation in Neurosurgery-A Systematic Review.Neurosurgery practice · 2023Review
- Exoscopic Microsurgery: A Change of Paradigm in Brain Tumor Surgery? Comparison with Standard Operative Microscope.Brain sciences · 2023Article
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
Objective: The three-dimensional (3D) exoscope is a novel apparatus introduced in recent years. Although an operating microscope (OM) is customarily used, this novel application offers several advantages. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the feasibility of deploying a robotic-guided 3D-exoscope for microneurosurgery and gauge its subsequent performance. Methods: The use of a 3D exoscope was compared with that of OM during 16 surgical procedures. Postoperatively, surgeons completed an eight-item Likert-scale satisfaction survey. As a second step, a predefined surgical task was then undertaken by surgeons with varying levels of experience, assessing the time entailed. Two questionnaires, the satisfaction survey and NASA task load index (NASA-TLX), were administered. Results: During routine procedures, the exoscope proved superior in magnification and ergonomic maintenance, showing inferior image contrast, quality, and illumination. It again ranked higher in magnification and ergonomic maintenance during the suturing task, and the OM excelled in treatment satisfaction and stereoscopic orientation. Workload assessment using the NASA-TLX revealed no difference by modality in the pairwise analysis of all components. At varying levels of experience, beginners bear a significantly higher burden in all principle components than mid-level and expert participants ( Conclusion: The quality of visualization by 3D exoscope seems adequate for treatment and its ergonomic benefit is superior to that of OM. Although experienced surgeons performed a surgical simulation faster under the OM, no difference was evident in NASA-TLX surveys. The 3D exoscope is an excellent alternative to the OM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.