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.
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.
Authors: Armando De Virgilio; Andrea Costantino; Claudia Ebm; Valerio Conti; Tiziana Mondello; Matteo Di Bari; Giovanni Cugini; Giuseppe Mercante; Giuseppe Spriano Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Felix Boehm; Rene Graesslin; Marie-Nicole Theodoraki; Leon Schild; Jens Greve; Thomas K Hoffmann; Patrick J Schuler Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 6.639