Laura Awad, Zakee Abdi, Benjamin J Langridge, Akul Karoshi, Peter E M Butler
{"title":"A Comparison of Commercially Available Digital Microscopes for Their Use in Bench-Model Simulation of Microsurgery.","authors":"Laura Awad, Zakee Abdi, Benjamin J Langridge, Akul Karoshi, Peter E M Butler","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1787980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong> Surgical education has seen a transition in the delivery of training, with increased use of online platforms to facilitate remote learning. Simulation training can increase access to education and reduce cost implications, while reducing patient risk. This study aims to compare commercially available digital microscopes, alongside a standard binocular surgical microscope, and determine whether they can be used as an alternative tool for remote microsurgery simulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> Data were collected for a total of four microscopes, including three commercially available digital microscopes, smartphone, and a binocular table microscope. Product characteristics were collated, and a subjective assessment was conducted using an 11-criteria questionnaire, graded with a 5-point scale. Results of digital microscopes were compared with the table binocular microscope.The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the performance of digital microscopes to the standard binocular microscope RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 31 participants: two consultants, nine surgical registrars, fourteen junior trainees, and six medical students. Digital microscopes were found to be significantly more affordable and convenient for trainees; however, the cost of the smartphone was significant. Overall, the Pancellant Digital Microscope performed the poorest, with trainees commenting on its unsuitability for surgical practice; the Plugable USB Digital Microscope (PLDM) was rated overall most like the binocular table microscope. The Depth of field was shallow in all digital microscopes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> With the increasing role of remote learning and simulation training in surgical education, the PLDM can provide a cheaper, more accessible alternative for junior trainees, in their pursuit of microsurgical skill acquisition.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1787980","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Surgical education has seen a transition in the delivery of training, with increased use of online platforms to facilitate remote learning. Simulation training can increase access to education and reduce cost implications, while reducing patient risk. This study aims to compare commercially available digital microscopes, alongside a standard binocular surgical microscope, and determine whether they can be used as an alternative tool for remote microsurgery simulation.
Methods: Data were collected for a total of four microscopes, including three commercially available digital microscopes, smartphone, and a binocular table microscope. Product characteristics were collated, and a subjective assessment was conducted using an 11-criteria questionnaire, graded with a 5-point scale. Results of digital microscopes were compared with the table binocular microscope.The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the performance of digital microscopes to the standard binocular microscope RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 31 participants: two consultants, nine surgical registrars, fourteen junior trainees, and six medical students. Digital microscopes were found to be significantly more affordable and convenient for trainees; however, the cost of the smartphone was significant. Overall, the Pancellant Digital Microscope performed the poorest, with trainees commenting on its unsuitability for surgical practice; the Plugable USB Digital Microscope (PLDM) was rated overall most like the binocular table microscope. The Depth of field was shallow in all digital microscopes.
Conclusion: With the increasing role of remote learning and simulation training in surgical education, the PLDM can provide a cheaper, more accessible alternative for junior trainees, in their pursuit of microsurgical skill acquisition.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery is a peer-reviewed, indexed journal that provides an international forum for the publication of articles focusing on reconstructive microsurgery and complex reconstructive surgery. The journal was originally established in 1984 for the microsurgical community to publish and share academic papers.
The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery provides the latest in original research spanning basic laboratory, translational, and clinical investigations. Review papers cover current topics in complex reconstruction and microsurgery. In addition, special sections discuss new technologies, innovations, materials, and significant problem cases.
The journal welcomes controversial topics, editorial comments, book reviews, and letters to the Editor, in order to complete the balanced spectrum of information available in the Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. All articles undergo stringent peer review by international experts in the specialty.