ArticleBrain & spine2026
Comparing the ergonomic aspects of the exoscope and microscope in neurosurgery using motion sensors.
Article in Brain & spine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ergonomic improvement for neurosurgeons is essential in reducing musculoskeletal disorders, particularly during prolonged procedures. Traditional microscopes often limit the range of motion, forcing surgeons into uncomfortable positions, particularly in cases involving angulated or narrow anatomy. Research question: This study compares neurosurgeons' posture and handling of the exoscope versus the microscope evaluating its ergonomic aspects. Methods: 26 cases were operated using a microscope (Zeiss, Jena, Germany) and 29 using an exoscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Data included task load index, camera and ocular adjustments, as well as subjective and objective assessments of posture. Sensor-based movement measurements were available for 18 cases, of which 8 were operated using the exoscope and were used to evaluate the surgeon's neck posture. Results: The task load index showed lower means when using the exoscope without significant differences. Camera adjustments were, on average, more frequent when using the exoscope (35.6 vs 26.9; p = 0.153). Subjective assessment indicated better body reclination and lateral bending posture with the exoscope (p < 0.001). Sensor data revealed angles of neck inclination, reclination, and lateral bending mostly below 20° across both modalities, without statistically significant differences. Conclusion: The exoscope group reported lower fatigue scores and subjectively milder body posture angles, suggesting ergonomic benefits, with no significant differences in the measured neck posture. The higher frequency of camera adjustments with the exoscope, combined with lower fatigue scores, highlights its potential ergonomic advantages due to increased range of motion, which are likely to improve further with ongoing technical refinements and growing user experience.
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.