ArticleSurgical neurology international2026
Airborne particle dynamics during draping of a surgical microscope versus an exoscope in spinal surgery: A prospective comparative study.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Exoscopes provide ergonomic and visualization advantages over conventional surgical microscopes. Despite their growing adoption, the impact of device draping on transient airborne particulate generation during setup, a critical but understudied contributor to surgical site contamination, remains unclear. Methods: This prospective observational study compared airborne particle dynamics during draping of a surgical microscope (Pentero) and an exoscope (Orbeye) in ten spinal surgeries (five per group) conducted in a laminar airflow operating room with high-efficiency particulate air filtration. Airborne particles sized 0.5 μm and 1.0 μm were recorded at 5 s intervals for 1 min from drape initiation. Cumulative exposure was analyzed using the area under the curve (AUC), and temporal dispersion patterns were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Results: Cumulative airborne particle exposure did not differ significantly between devices for either 0.5 μm or 1.0 μm particles, although 0.5 μm AUC values tended to be lower with the exoscope. Time-resolved analysis demonstrated a significant time-by-device interaction for 0.5 μm particles ( Conclusion: Transient airborne particle behavior during draping appears to be influenced by device configuration and draping mechanics rather than cumulative exposure alone. Awareness of device-specific airflow interactions and controlled draping practices may help mitigate transient contamination risk and enhance intraoperative environmental safety.
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.