ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2025
Clinical implementation of the 3D 4K exoscope (Orbeye™) in reconstructive head and neck surgery.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Intraoperative imaging during head and neck reconstruction.Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the clinical utility of the 3D 4K exoscope for reconstructive head and neck surgery.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed surgical details and complications with the use of the 3D 4K exoscope for microvascular reconstruction at a high-volume Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, compared to the use of a 2D microscope. Patients with oral cancer undergoing microvascular reconstruction were categorized into two cohorts based on the intraoperative use of the 3D 4K exoscope (Orbeye™, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) or a conventional microscope (ZEISS S8 - OPMI Vario, Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany; Leica M680, Leica Mikrosysteme Vertrieb GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) during a six-month study period, respectively. Outcomes were also compared between two time periods of the exoscope use to assess the learning curve over time.
resultsThe exoscope was applied for microvascular anastomosis in 55 surgical cases (cohort 1), and the conventional microscope was employed in 56 cases (cohort 2). The rates of postoperative complications within 14 days following the use of the exoscope were 14.5% (N = 8), compared to 16.1% (N = 9) in cohort 2. Analysis over time demonstrated a learning curve with the exoscope, reflected in a decrease in postoperative complications within 14 days from 22.7 to 9.1%.
conclusionThe three-dimensional camera system provides excellent and reliable intraoperative visualization in reconstructive head and neck surgery. Transitioning to this new technology did not lead to an increase in intra- or postoperative complications, but the successful implementation requires some experience with the device.
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.