Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41050373›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2025

Comparison of surgical exoscope versus operating microscope in spine surgery: A Surgeon's perspective.

Charlize Du Preez, Jake M McDonnell, Aubrie M Sowa, Keith Synnott, Marcus Timlin, Seamus Morris, Stacey Darwish, Joseph S Butler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Charlize Du PreezUCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.
Jake M McDonnellNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Aubrie M SowaUCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.
Keith SynnottNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Marcus TimlinNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Seamus MorrisNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Stacey DarwishNational Spinal Injuries Unit, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Joseph S ButlerUCD School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: A newly developed surgical visualization tool, the exoscope, has emerged as an alternative to the widely used operating microscope (OM). Through a qualitative survey, this study aimed to assess surgeons' perspectives on the exoscope compared to the OM, identifying its advantages, limitations, and barriers to widespread adoption. Research question: What are surgeons' perspectives of the exoscope compared to the OM? Materials and methods: A 29-question survey, designed by the authors, was used to compare the exoscope and the OM. The survey addressed key comparative aspects of both systems and included demographic information about participants and their institutions. Surgeons were recruited from internationally recognized organizations of expert spinal surgeons, with invitations sent via email. Responses were submitted anonymously, ensuring unbiased and authentic data collection. Results: Surgeons reported using the exoscope in a total of 1517 cases. Most surgeons found the exoscope comparable to or superior to the OM in many different parameters. 60.32 % of surgeons considered the exoscope to offer good learning opportunities, with most perceiving the learning curve as moderate (41.27 %) or mild (30.16 %). However, opinions on manoeuvrability and surgeon fatigue were divided-49.21 % found these aspects slightly better with the exoscope, a significant proportion felt they were worse. The primary drawback was its high cost, with additional concerns about ergonomics and resolution. Discussion and conclusion: From a surgeon's perspective, the exoscope presents several advantages over the OM. However, further improvements are needed, and it remains uncertain whether the exoscope can fully replace the OM in surgical practice.

Indexed as

ExoscopeOperating microscopeQualitativeSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID41050373
PMCPMC12494594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.