Cargando…

A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model

BACKGROUND: Although they may not replace standard training methods that use surgical microscopes, smartphones equipped with high-resolution screens and high-definition cameras are an attractive alternative for practicing microsurgical skills. They are ubiquitous, simple to operate, and inexpensive....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jianmongkol, Surut, Vinitpairot, Chaiyos, Thitiworakarn, Navapong, Wattanakamolchai, Settapon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8795636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35086321
http://dx.doi.org/10.5999/aps.2021.01340
_version_ 1784641113974374400
author Jianmongkol, Surut
Vinitpairot, Chaiyos
Thitiworakarn, Navapong
Wattanakamolchai, Settapon
author_facet Jianmongkol, Surut
Vinitpairot, Chaiyos
Thitiworakarn, Navapong
Wattanakamolchai, Settapon
author_sort Jianmongkol, Surut
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although they may not replace standard training methods that use surgical microscopes, smartphones equipped with high-resolution screens and high-definition cameras are an attractive alternative for practicing microsurgical skills. They are ubiquitous, simple to operate, and inexpensive. This study compared anastomoses of chicken femoral vessels using a smartphone camera versus a standard operative microscope. METHODS: Forty anastomoses of non-living chicken femoral vessels were divided into four groups. A resident and an experienced microsurgeon performed anastomoses of femoral chicken vessels with 8-0 and 10-0 sutures, using a smartphone camera and a surgical microscope. The time to complete the anastomosis and the number of anastomosis errors were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The time taken to perform an anastomosis by the experienced microsurgeon was significantly longer when using the smartphone (median: 32.5 minutes vs. 20 minutes, P<0.001). The resident completed the anastomoses with both types of equipment without a significant difference in the operative times. When using a smartphone, the operation times were not significantly different between the resident and the experienced microsurgeon (P=0.238). The resident showed non-significant differences in operation time and the number of errors when using a smartphone or an operative microscope (P=1.000 and P=0.065, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical practice with non-living chicken femoral vessels can be performed with a smartphone, though it can take longer than with an operative microscope for experienced microsurgeons. The resident may also experience frustration and tend to make more anastomosis errors when using a smartphone versus an operative microscope.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8795636
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87956362022-02-07 A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model Jianmongkol, Surut Vinitpairot, Chaiyos Thitiworakarn, Navapong Wattanakamolchai, Settapon Arch Plast Surg Research/Experimental BACKGROUND: Although they may not replace standard training methods that use surgical microscopes, smartphones equipped with high-resolution screens and high-definition cameras are an attractive alternative for practicing microsurgical skills. They are ubiquitous, simple to operate, and inexpensive. This study compared anastomoses of chicken femoral vessels using a smartphone camera versus a standard operative microscope. METHODS: Forty anastomoses of non-living chicken femoral vessels were divided into four groups. A resident and an experienced microsurgeon performed anastomoses of femoral chicken vessels with 8-0 and 10-0 sutures, using a smartphone camera and a surgical microscope. The time to complete the anastomosis and the number of anastomosis errors were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The time taken to perform an anastomosis by the experienced microsurgeon was significantly longer when using the smartphone (median: 32.5 minutes vs. 20 minutes, P<0.001). The resident completed the anastomoses with both types of equipment without a significant difference in the operative times. When using a smartphone, the operation times were not significantly different between the resident and the experienced microsurgeon (P=0.238). The resident showed non-significant differences in operation time and the number of errors when using a smartphone or an operative microscope (P=1.000 and P=0.065, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical practice with non-living chicken femoral vessels can be performed with a smartphone, though it can take longer than with an operative microscope for experienced microsurgeons. The resident may also experience frustration and tend to make more anastomosis errors when using a smartphone versus an operative microscope. Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons 2022-01 2022-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8795636/ /pubmed/35086321 http://dx.doi.org/10.5999/aps.2021.01340 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research/Experimental
Jianmongkol, Surut
Vinitpairot, Chaiyos
Thitiworakarn, Navapong
Wattanakamolchai, Settapon
A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model
title A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model
title_full A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model
title_fullStr A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model
title_short A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model
title_sort comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model
topic Research/Experimental
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8795636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35086321
http://dx.doi.org/10.5999/aps.2021.01340
work_keys_str_mv AT jianmongkolsurut acomparisonofusingasmartphoneversusasurgicalmicroscopeformicrosurgicalanastomosisinanonlivingmodel
AT vinitpairotchaiyos acomparisonofusingasmartphoneversusasurgicalmicroscopeformicrosurgicalanastomosisinanonlivingmodel
AT thitiworakarnnavapong acomparisonofusingasmartphoneversusasurgicalmicroscopeformicrosurgicalanastomosisinanonlivingmodel
AT wattanakamolchaisettapon acomparisonofusingasmartphoneversusasurgicalmicroscopeformicrosurgicalanastomosisinanonlivingmodel
AT jianmongkolsurut comparisonofusingasmartphoneversusasurgicalmicroscopeformicrosurgicalanastomosisinanonlivingmodel
AT vinitpairotchaiyos comparisonofusingasmartphoneversusasurgicalmicroscopeformicrosurgicalanastomosisinanonlivingmodel
AT thitiworakarnnavapong comparisonofusingasmartphoneversusasurgicalmicroscopeformicrosurgicalanastomosisinanonlivingmodel
AT wattanakamolchaisettapon comparisonofusingasmartphoneversusasurgicalmicroscopeformicrosurgicalanastomosisinanonlivingmodel