Application of the ORBEYE three-dimensional exoscope for microsurgical procedures
Application of the ORBEYE three-dimensional exoscope for microsurgical procedures
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/micr.30547
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-19
期刊：
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Selber, Jesse C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ahmad, Faisal I.;Mericli, Alexander F.;Selber, Jesse C.
背景技术数字成像、屏幕技术和光学技术的进步导致了体外望远镜的发展，体外望远镜也被称为外窥镜，作为外科放大镜(SLS)和传统手术显微镜(OM)的替代。与传统设备相比，外窥镜的理论优势包括改进的外科医生人体工程学；卓越的三维、高清晰度光学；以及更易于使用。特别是，ORBEYE外窥镜在外科领域已经证明了早期的效果。本研究的目的是将ORBEYE显微镜与常规显微镜进行比较。方法在这项病例对照的初步研究中，我们比较了ORBEYE(n=22)和传统显微镜(n=27)在6周内连续49例显微外科手术中的表现。这两种可视化方法包括乳房和头颈部病例，而ORBEYE也用于肢体和淋巴水肿的显微手术病例。应用ORBEYE进行皮瓣剥离和微血管吻合。检查并比较患者的基本人口学特征、手术时间、缺血时间以及手术前后的微血管并发症。主治医生在术后完成了一项人体工程学和绩效调查，比较了ORBEYE和他们之前使用的SL/OM，使用了5分Likert量表。结果两组手术时间(507±132min比522+/-139，p=.714)、缺血时间(77.9±/-31.4min比77.5±36.0，p=.972)和显微手术并发症(0%比4%，p=1)均无明显差异。在术后立即进行的一项调查中，外科医生报告说，良好的人体工程学，出色的图像质量，以及使用外窥镜操作设备的简便性。结论ORBEYE是一种有效的显微外科手术工具，可作为传统光学放大技术的替代技术。
Background Advances in digital imaging, screen technology, and optics have led to the development of extracorporeal telescopes, also known as exoscopes, as alternatives to surgical loupes (SLs) and traditional operating microscopes (OMs) for surgical magnification. Theoretical advantages of the exoscope over conventional devices include improved surgeon ergonomics; superior three-dimensional, high-definition optics; and greater ease-of-use. The ORBEYE exoscope, in particular, has demonstrated early efficacy in the surgical arena. The purpose of this study was to compare the ORBEYE with conventional microscopy. Methods In this case-control pilot study, we compared the ORBEYE (n = 22) with conventional microscopy (n = 27) across 49 consecutive microsurgical cases during a 6-week period. Both visualization methods consisted of breast, and head and neck cases, while the ORBEYE was also used for extremity and lymphedema microsurgical cases. The ORBEYE was utilized during flap dissection and microvascular anastomosis. Baseline demographics, operative time, ischemia time, and intra- and postoperative microvascular complications were examined and compared. Attending surgeons completed an ergonomics and performance survey postoperatively comparing the ORBEYE with their previous use of SL/OM using a 5-point Likert scale. Results There was no difference in operative time (507 +/- 132 min vs. 522 +/- 139, p = .714), ischemia time (77.9 +/- 31.4 min vs. 77.5 +/- 36.0, p = .972), or microsurgical complications (0% vs. 4%, p = 1) between the ORBEYE and conventional microscopy groups. In a survey administered immediately postoperatively, surgeons reported favorable ergonomics, excellent image quality, and ease of equipment manipulation using the exoscope. Conclusions The ORBEYE is an effective microsurgical tool and may be considered as an alternative to conventional optical magnification technology.