ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Evaluation of visual ergonomics in microsurgery: a real-time video processing solution.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 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.
- Apple Vision Pro as the Intended Primary Intraoperative Visualization Platform for Complete Cataract Surgery: A Prospective Single-Center Feasibility Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSurgeons' visual and ergonomical challenges are long-standing concerns since the use of microscopes in surgical procedures. Although devices have been improved in the last few decades, the problem of narrow visual fields in high magnification surgeries persists. This study aims to identify the visual ergonomics challenges among microsurgeons and assess the need for novel assistive surgical solutions.
methodsThe study consisted of two parts: a survey and a hands-on experiment. Sixteen surgeons from neurosurgery and otolaryngology (ENT) specialties were invited to semi-structured interviews on challenges encountered when using surgical microscopes and evaluation of the two proposed technological solutions: CPM (context-preserving magnification) and IT (instrument transparency). Following a demonstration of these software solutions, a survey utilizing a Likert scale was administered. The second part of the study involved twelve practicing neurosurgeons who performed a task using a novel solution and compared it to a standard operative microscope setting.
resultsThe most common challenges reported were visual obstruction of field by instruments (93.75%), blurring of structures and light reflection (81.25%), and loss of context (68.75%). 50% of surgeons agreed that adjusting zoom and focus takes a considerable amount of time from surgery and 56% stated that they had at least one episode of difficulty seeing depth. Notably, 69% of respondents expressed interest in testing prototypes of both proposed solutions in real surgery, with a particular preference for instrument transparency. Furthermore, the context-preserving magnification solution hands-on trial demonstrated a 40% reduction in task completion time for 60% of participants. However, one participant found no advantage, and others took longer to complete tasks with the solution compared to standard settings.
conclusionOur solution addresses the top visual challenges and instrument obstruction remains a top challenge in high magnification microsurgery. We showed that surgeons are highly likely to use novel assistive technologies that provide wider visual field and transparent instruments.
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.