ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Using 3D Microscope for Hepatic Artery Reconstruction in Living Donor Liver Transplant.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study compares the intraoperative process of hepatic artery anastomosis using conventional microscope and novel 3D digital microscope and discusses our technique and operative set-up.
methodA retrospective comparative cohort study with 46 hepatic artery reconstructions in living donor liver transplant patients. Either an operational microscope (control group) or a 3D digital microscope Mitaka Kestrel View II (study group) was used for hepatic artery anastomosis. We then discuss and share our institution's experience of improving surgical training.
resultsBoth operation instruments provide effective and comparable results. There was no statistical difference regarding operational objective results between conventional microscope and exoscope. Both instruments have no hepatic artery size limit, and both resulted in complete vessel patency rate.
conclusionsThere was no statistical differences regarding hepatic artery anastomosis between microscope and exoscope cohorts. Microsurgeons should perform hepatic artery anastomosis efficiently with the instruments they are most proficient with. Yet, exoscope provided better ergonomics in the operation room and lessened musculoskeletal strain, allowing surgeons to work in a more neutral and comfortable posture while allowing the first assistant to learn and assist more effectively. Using exoscope with micro-forceps and modified tie technique make artery reconstruction easier.
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.