ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Microvascular anastomosis in a challenging setting using a 4 K three-dimensional exoscope compared with a conventional microscope: An
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation speeds up adaptation to the 3D exoscope: a randomized controlled trial.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of visual ergonomics in microsurgery: a real-time video processing solution.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Video gaming facilitates adaptation to surgical exoscopes - a laboratory experiment.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Comparison of operative microscope and exoscope for execution of microanastomoses on an artificial model.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Use of the 4K-3D ORBEYE Exoscope for Supermicrosurgical Lymphaticovenular Anastomosis: A Case Report.Cureus · 2024Article
- Validation of a dynamic 4D microsurgical bypass simulator for training and teaching microvascular anastomosis techniques with blood flow and fluorescence imaging.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) exoscope systems have been developed and are reported to be adequate alternatives to the conventional microscope. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and effectivity of microvascular anastomosis using a 4 K 3D exoscope in an Methods: The abdominal aortas of mice were selected as the target vessels for comparing the outcomes of microvascular anastomosis for both the conventional microscope and 3D exoscope. We recorded the vessel separation, temporary occlusion, and total procedure durations. Local conditions at the sutures were also recorded. Typical histopathological images were presented, and the patency of anastomotic vessels within 5 and 30 min were evaluated. All procedures included both superficial and deep anastomosis. Results: Sixty mice were included in the analysis; the weight and vascular diameter were 38.5 ± 5.8 g and 0.77 ± 0.06 mm, respectively, and around 8 stiches were required. Regarding feasibility, vessel separation duration, temporary occlusion duration, total procedure duration, blood leak, and number of vascular folds between stiches, the results were comparable between the two types of microscopes. The feasibility of anastomosis was also confirmed by pathology. Regarding effectiveness, anastomotic vascular patency at 5 and 30 min were similar for both microscopes. Even in the more difficult scenario of deep anastomosis, the results were comparable. Conclusions: In a challenging experimental setting, comparable outcomes of microvascular anastomosis were observed for the conventional microscope and 3D exoscope in these animal experiments. Therefore,
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.