SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2026
Microvascular errors of technique: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. 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.
- Vision-Capable LLMs in Microsurgery: A Blinded Comparison of Two AI Models with Expert Microsurgeons in the Appraisal of 200 Experimental Anastomoses.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMicrovascular procedures demand exceptional precision and are prone to technical errors that compromise outcomes. Performance improves fastest when errors are identified, measured, and corrected early during training. Error-based learning has become an essential part of microsurgical training, highlighting the importance of identifying and learning from mistakes to improve performance. This review aimed to systematically search the literature on all microsurgical errors and categorize them by operative phases. MATERIALS AND
methodsA structured literature search was conducted across Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases, following PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data in duplicate. Articles were included if they evaluated microvascular anastomoses with vessels less than 2 mm in diameter, and if microsurgical errors were detailed along with their impact on outcomes, in particular on anastomotic patency. Given the heterogeneity of the data, a SWiM-style (Synthesis Without Meta-analysis) narrative synthesis was used.
resultsA total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. Errors were categorized as pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative. Intra-operative errors were the most frequently reported. Back-wall stitches, uneven lumens, and excessive suture tension were consistently associated with reduced patency. Several validated scoring tools (e.g., ALI, MARS10, OSATS) were identified as effective in quantifying errors and guiding feedback in training settings.
conclusionMicrovascular anastomosis errors span all phases of the microsurgical procedure and significantly affect anastomotic success. This review offers a structured taxonomy of errors and underscores the importance of error-based learning and assessment in microsurgical training. Standardized error classification may enhance training programs, accelerating the acquisition of microsurgical skills along the learning curve and improving clinical outcomes.
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.