ArticleCureus2023
Accessible Spinal Surgery: Transformation Through the Implementation of Exoscopes As Substitutes for Conventional Microsurgery in Low- and Middle-Income Settings.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exoscope versus microscope in spine surgery: A meta-analysis based on procedure-specific subgroup analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Augmented Reality Integration in Skull Base Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Pooled it
- Exoscope-assisted spine surgery: Insights from orthopedic and neurosurgical teams through a survey.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Overcoming career barriers in global neurosurgery: insights from the WFNS young neurosurgeons survey.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Gene Therapy for Glioblastoma: A Scoping Review.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advancements in neurosurgical visualization have been made possible by the introduction of the operating microscope (OM) and the emergence of exoscopic technology (EX). Both OMs and EXs provide enhanced magnification and illumination, but they come with their own set of advantages and disadvantages. OMs provide high-quality magnification and illumination and have been used successfully in a variety of surgical procedures. They can be customized to fit the specific needs of the surgeon and are a well-established technology. However, they can be bulky, expensive, and cause discomfort during extended procedures. EXs provide high-definition magnification and illumination, improved depth perception and ergonomics, and can be cost-effective. They can be customized to fit the specific needs of the surgeon and can be made using locally available materials, reducing the need for expensive imports. However, they may require adjustment and have a learning curve for surgeons who are used to operating with OMs. Additionally, they may have limited availability in some healthcare settings. The choice between OMs and EXs will depend on the specific needs of the surgeon and the healthcare setting. The integration of 3D EX systems has revolutionized neurosurgery, offering improved depth perception and ergonomics. EX's cost-effectiveness addresses accessibility concerns, making it an attractive alternative, particularly for low and middle-income healthcare settings. The exoscope seems to be a safe alternative compared to an operative microscope for the most common brain and spinal procedures. The exoscope may help expand access to neurosurgical care and training worldwide. In conclusion, both technologies have their own set of advantages and disadvantages, and the choice between them will depend on the specific needs of the surgeon and the healthcare setting.
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.