ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Comparative Learning Curves of Microscope Versus Exoscope: A Preclinical Randomized Crossover Noninferiority Study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microscopic vs. exoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for rathke's cleft cyst- a retrospective single center study.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Exoscope-assisted spine surgery: Insights from orthopedic and neurosurgical teams through a survey.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Craniotomy Complexity and Outcomes in Exoscope-Assisted Cranial Surgery: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Clinical implementation of the 3D 4K exoscope (Orbeye™) in reconstructive head and neck surgery.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Implementation Strategies and Ergonomic Factors in Robot-assisted Microsurgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Use of the 4K-3D ORBEYE Exoscope for Supermicrosurgical Lymphaticovenular Anastomosis: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
- Technical Strategies and Learning Curve in Robotic-assisted Peripheral Nerve Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- From Microscopic to Exoscopic Microsurgery: Are We Facing a Change of Paradigm?Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2024Article
- Tailoring neurosurgical operating room education to medical undergraduates: Integrative review and meta-synthesis.Brain & spine · 2024Review
- A Deep Learning Approach to Classify Surgical Skill in Microsurgery Using Force Data from a Novel Sensorised Surgical Glove.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Taming the exoscope: a one-year prospective laboratory training study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Beyond Magnification and Illumination: Ergonomics with a 3D Exoscope in Lumbar Spine Microsurgery to Reduce Musculoskeletal Injuries.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- First Application of the Orbeye™ 4K 3D Exoscope in Recurrent Papillary Thyroid Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- A Sensorised Surgical Glove to Analyze Forces During Neurosurgery.Neurosurgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: An exoscope heralds a new era of optics in surgery. However, there is limited quantitative evidence describing and comparing the learning curve. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the learning curve, plateau, and rate of novice surgeons using an Olympus ORBEYE exoscope compared to an operating microscope (Carl Zeiss OPMI PENTERO or KINEVO 900). Methods: A preclinical, randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial assessed the performance of seventeen novice and seven expert surgeons completing the microsurgical grape dissection task "Star's the limit." A standardized star was drawn on a grape using a stencil with a 5 mm edge length. Participants cut the star and peeled the star-shaped skin off the grape with microscissors and forceps while minimizing damage to the grape flesh. Participants repeated the task 20 times consecutively for each optical device. Learning was assessed using model functions such as the Weibull function, and the cognitive workload was assessed with the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Results: Seventeen novice (male:female 12:5; median years of training 0.4 [0-2.8 years]) and six expert (male:female 4:2; median years of training 10 [8.9-24 years]) surgeons were recruited. "Star's the limit" was validated using a performance score that gave a threshold of expert performance of 70 (0-100). The learning rate (ORBEYE -0.94 ± 0.37; microscope -1.30 ± 0.46) and learning plateau (ORBEYE 64.89 ± 8.81; microscope 65.93 ± 9.44) of the ORBEYE were significantly noninferior compared to those of the microscope group ( Conclusions: This is the first study to quantify the ORBEYE learning curve and the first randomized controlled trial to compare the ORBEYE learning curve to that of the microscope. The plateau performance and learning rate of the ORBEYE are significantly noninferior to those of the microscope in a preclinical grape dissection task. This study also supports the ergonomics of the ORBEYE as reported in preliminary observational studies and highlights visualization as a focus for further development.
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.