Advancement of the endoscopic assisted microsurgery: a clinical experience

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. 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.

Can Smartphones Be Used to Perform Video-Assisted Microanastomosis? An Experimental Study

BACKGROUND

Smartphone cameras are continuously improving. The present study aimed to evaluate the possibility of using smartphones' magnification system to perform microanastomosis in rats.

METHODS

Fifteen rats were randomly divided into 3 groups, according to the magnification system used: Microscope, iPhone 7 smartphone, and Galaxy S7 smartphone. In the microscope group, a DFVasconcelos microsurgery microscope was used. In both smartphone groups, the magnifications systems were connected to a 55-inch television through the mirror function. Animals in both groups underwent femoral artery anastomosis in the right forepaw and femoral nerve neurorrhaphy in the left hindleg. The body weight, arterial and nerve caliber, and anastomosis time and patency were immediately analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding body weight, arterial, or nerve caliber. The smartphones did not provide a sufficient quality of image for an adequate identification of the arterial walls. Therefore, neither arterial anastomosis nor neurorrhaphy could be completed, even after 3 hours of surgery. The first steps toward anastomosis or raffia were performed with difficulty.

CONCLUSION

The current video resolution and lack of stereoscopic image of available smartphones is not sufficient to perform video-assisted anastomosis of femoral arteries or nerves.

High-Definition Video System for Peripheral Neurorrhaphy in Rats

BACKGROUND

Although all microsurgeries are based on the use of surgical microscopes, several alternative magnification systems have shown promising results. Improvements in image quality facilitated the use of video systems in microsurgeries with safety and accuracy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a low-cost, video-assisted magnification system in peripheral neurorrhaphy in rats.

METHODS

Twenty Wistar rats were randomly divided into 2 matched groups according to the magnification system used: the microscope group, with neurorrhaphy performed under a microscope with an image magnification of 40×; and the video system group, with the procedures performed under a video system composed of a high-definition Sony camcorder DCR-SR42 set to 52× magnification, macro lenses, 42-inch television, and a digital HDMI cable. We analyzed weight, nerve caliber, total surgery time, neurorrhaphy time, number of stitches, and number of axons in both ends (proximal and distal).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups in weight, nerve caliber, or number of stitches. Neurorrhaphy under the video system took longer (video: 5.60 minutes; microscope: 3.20 minutes; P < .05). Number of axons was similar between groups, both in proximal and distal stumps.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to perform a peripheral neurorrhaphy in rats through video system magnification, but with a longer surgical time.