ArticleANZ journal of surgery2025
Ergonomics of 3D-Exoscope Versus the Operating Microscope in Otologic Surgery.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2025. 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.
- 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
- Review
- The hidden cost of precision: ergonomic strain, wellness, and career longevity in otolaryngology.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 · 2026Review
- Ergonomics of 3D-Exoscope Versus the Operating Microscope in Otologic Surgery.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
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
introductionSurgeons experience one of the highest rates of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, with otologists identified as a high-risk specialty. This is commonly attributed to the frequent use of the operating microscope, as it often necessitates prolonged, ergonomically unfavourable, awkward postures. Robotic 3D-exoscopes have emerged as a potential tool in improving surgical ergonomics without compromising on visualisation. This study compares the ergonomic risk associated with both devices.
methodsA prospective, single centre, ergonomic analysis was conducted on otolaryngologists performing major otologic surgery using the OPMI Sensera operating microscope (Zeiss) and RoboticScope 3D-exoscope (BHS Technologies). Ergonomic risk was evaluated using the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) tool and a questionnaire based on the NASA Task Load Index.
resultsEighteen cases were performed; nine using the 3D-exoscope and nine using the operating microscope. Use of the 3D exoscope significantly reduced ergonomic risk, with a lower mean RULA score (4.0) compared to the microscope (5.9). Subjectively, surgeons reported reduced physical strain, effort and weakness when using the 3D-exoscope compared with the microscope, with similar cognitive and mental workload. Image quality, magnification, colour contrast, ease of use and usability of the 3D-exoscope were rated positively. Further, the 3D-exoscope was also rated highly for its educational value.
conclusion3D-exoscopes appear to be more ergonomically favourable and suitable when compared to the operating microscope for major otologic surgery. Continued development and larger scale studies are warranted to improve ergonomics in otologic surgery and can also inform ergonomic improvements across other surgical specialties.
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.