Armando De Virgilio1,2, Andrea Costantino3,4, Claudia Ebm5, Valerio Conti1,2, Tiziana Mondello1,2, Matteo Di Bari1,2, Giovanni Cugini1,2, Giuseppe Mercante1,2, Giuseppe Spriano1,2. 1. Otorhinolaryngology Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy. 2. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini, 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy. 3. Otorhinolaryngology Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, MI, Italy. andrea.costantino94@gmail.com. 4. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini, 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy. andrea.costantino94@gmail.com. 5. Simulation Center, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini, 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of a high definition 3D exoscope (VITOM®) for microsurgery training in a cohort of naïve medical students. METHODS:Twenty-two consecutive medical students performed a battery of four exercises assessing basic microsurgical skills. The students were randomized in two different groups based on two different VITOM® holding systems (VERSACRANE™ and ARTip™ cruise). Participants self-reported the VITOM®system quality on a 4-point Likert scale (VITOM Quality Assessment Tool). The time needed to complete the exercises was analyzed. RESULTS: All students successfully completed the training, and no technical issues were raised during the simulation. The majority of the individual items were judged "good" or "very good" (n = 187; 94.4%), regardless of the two groups. "Image quality" (n = 21; 95%), "magnification rate" (n = 20; 91%), "stereoscopic effect" (n = 19; 86%), and "focusing" (n = 18; 82%) represented the best-rated items. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was measured in almost all items of the VITOM Quality Assessment Tool (p > 0.05). The time needed to perform each exercise showed a statistically significant difference between groups in two tests (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of a VITOM-based microsurgery training. The students' subjective assessment of the VITOM® 3D system was promising in terms of technological quality and technical feasibility. Further studies are recommended to define which VITOM® holding system could be more appropriate for microsurgery training.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of a high definition 3D exoscope (VITOM®) for microsurgery training in a cohort of naïve medical students. METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive medical students performed a battery of four exercises assessing basic microsurgical skills. The students were randomized in two different groups based on two different VITOM® holding systems (VERSACRANE™ and ARTip™ cruise). Participants self-reported the VITOM® system quality on a 4-point Likert scale (VITOM Quality Assessment Tool). The time needed to complete the exercises was analyzed. RESULTS: All students successfully completed the training, and no technical issues were raised during the simulation. The majority of the individual items were judged "good" or "very good" (n = 187; 94.4%), regardless of the two groups. "Image quality" (n = 21; 95%), "magnification rate" (n = 20; 91%), "stereoscopic effect" (n = 19; 86%), and "focusing" (n = 18; 82%) represented the best-rated items. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was measured in almost all items of the VITOM Quality Assessment Tool (p > 0.05). The time needed to perform each exercise showed a statistically significant difference between groups in two tests (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of a VITOM-based microsurgery training. The students' subjective assessment of the VITOM® 3D system was promising in terms of technological quality and technical feasibility. Further studies are recommended to define which VITOM® holding system could be more appropriate for microsurgery training.
Authors: Aimee K Gardner; Daniel J Scott; James C Hebert; John D Mellinger; Ariel Frey-Vogel; Raymond P Ten Eyck; Bradley R Davis; Lelan F Sillin; Ajit K Sachdeva Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Bruce E Pollock; Colin L W Driscoll; Robert L Foote; Michael J Link; Deborah A Gorman; Christopher D Bauch; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Karl N Krecke; Craig H Johnson Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Giovanni Colombo; Matteo Di Bari; Federica Canzano; Armando De Virgilio; Giovanni Cugini; Giuseppe Mercante; Giuseppe Spriano; Fabio Ferreli Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-10-31 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