ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2023
Binocular microscopes versus exoscopes: Experiences and performance in simulated otologic surgery.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective evaluation of the VITOM 3D exoscope in ear surgery compared with surgical microscopes: part II-optical performance, handling, workload and ergonomics.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Trial
- Fourier Lightfield Multiview Stereoscope for Large Field-of-View 3D Imaging in Microsurgical Settings.Advanced photonics nexus · 2025Article
- Notable Programs in Neurotology Series: The University of Miami Ear Institute.Otology & neurotology open · 2024Article
- Binocular microscopes versus exoscopes: Experiences and performance in simulated otologic surgery.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Exoscopes represent a promising alternative to conventional binocular microscopes (OM) in otology offering potential advantages such as enhanced ergonomics and a more compact device design. While previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of exoscopes in various surgical specialties, their objective assessment in the field of otology remains limited. Therefore, this investigation aims to assess task-based efficiency associated with exoscopes in the field of otology by use of simulated surgical models. Methods: A prospective cross-over study design was used to compare an OM to an exoscope in otolaryngology residents and medical students. Participants performed five tasks on 3D-printed ear models using both the exoscope and OM. Data collection included completion time, frequency of predefined errors, mental effort, and user experience. Subgroup analysis was performed based on level of experience. Results: Fourteen students and fifteen residents participated. Participants completed four of five tasks faster with the OM and there was no difference in number of errors committed. When separated by surgical experience, residents performed four of five tasks faster using the OM while students completed one of five tasks faster with the OM. Students committed more errors with the exoscope for one task with no difference in errors for residents. There was no difference in perceived difficulty performing tasks with either visualization system. Exit survey results showed more favorable opinions of the OM among residents and more favorable opinions of the exoscope among students. Conclusions: The exoscope permits successful performance in simulated otologic tasks. Task performance and user experience between operative microscopes and exoscopes differ based on level of surgical experience. Level of Evidence: 2.
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.