ArticleJournal of reconstructive microsurgery2025
A Comparison of Commercially Available Digital Microscopes for Their Use in Bench-Model Simulation of Microsurgery.
Article in Journal of reconstructive microsurgery, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical education has seen a transition in the delivery of training, with increased use of online platforms to facilitate remote learning. Simulation training can increase access to education and reduce cost implications, while reducing patient risk. This study aims to compare commercially available digital microscopes, alongside a standard binocular surgical microscope, and determine whether they can be used as an alternative tool for remote microsurgery simulation.
methodsData were collected for a total of four microscopes, including three commercially available digital microscopes, smartphone, and a binocular table microscope. Product characteristics were collated, and a subjective assessment was conducted using an 11-criteria questionnaire, graded with a 5-point scale. Results of digital microscopes were compared with the table binocular microscope.The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the performance of digital microscopes to the standard binocular microscope
resultsThe questionnaire was completed by 31 participants: two consultants, nine surgical registrars, fourteen junior trainees, and six medical students. Digital microscopes were found to be significantly more affordable and convenient for trainees; however, the cost of the smartphone was significant. Overall, the Pancellant Digital Microscope performed the poorest, with trainees commenting on its unsuitability for surgical practice; the Plugable USB Digital Microscope (PLDM) was rated overall most like the binocular table microscope. The Depth of field was shallow in all digital microscopes.
conclusionWith the increasing role of remote learning and simulation training in surgical education, the PLDM can provide a cheaper, more accessible alternative for junior trainees, in their pursuit of microsurgical skill acquisition.
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.