ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Comparison of operative microscope and exoscope for execution of microanastomoses on an artificial model.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exoscopic Visualization for Transorbital Surgery: Preliminary Anatomical and Clinical Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: While the improved ergonomics, depth of field, and freedom of movement offered by Exoscopes compared to Operative Microscopes are well established, their value in surgical education and training is often mentioned but remains poorly documented. Methods: In this study, we used a using a slightly modified version of the NOMAT score to compare the microvascular anastomoses on an artificial model made using traditional Operative Microscopes and the Orbeye 4K 3D Exoscope. Each participant performed the task 3 times. Results: The results showed that microscope users initially scored higher in several aspects, likely due to greater prior familiarity with the device. However, by the third repetition, the differences were no longer significant, demonstrating that the Exoscope is not inferior to the traditional Microscope in laboratory training. Moreover, the Exoscope group exhibited a faster learning curve for specific skills, highlighting its potential for early adoption by young surgeons. Discussion: These findings emphasize the educational promise of Exoscopes, particularly in facilitating a smooth transition from traditional microscopes. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and extended training periods are needed to validate these conclusions.
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.