ArticleJournal of maxillofacial and oral surgery2025
Evaluation of Smartphone Magnification vs. Microscope in Microvascular Anastomosis: An Experimental Study.
Article in Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Surgical loupes and microscopes are the gold standard in microvascular surgery, but they have various pitfalls. Smartphones have recently bridged the gap and are able to provide a high-quality image in a cost effective manner. But is this enough to replace traditional methods? The objective of this study was to compare the time taken to perform end-to-end microvascular anastomosis, and the error rate in head and neck oncology, in which a free fibula graft was used for reconstruction using smartphones and standard operative microscopes. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients were divided into three groups of eight for each magnification method. Smartphone 1, Smartphone 2 and Microscope. Patients undergoing free fibula graft reconstruction in head and neck oncology were enrolled for this study. A single microvascular surgeon operated. Anastomosis time and error rate based on Anastomosis Lapse Index was recorded. Results: Anastomosis time was increased in smartphone 1 and smartphone 2 compared to the microscope (p = 0.002) and (p = 0.001), respectively. Error rate was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Microvascular anastomosis can be performed effectively with a smartphone with an experienced surgeon.
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.