A Comparison of Commercially Available Digital Microscopes for Their Use in Bench-Model Simulation of Microsurgery.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of reconstructive microsurgery Pub Date : 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1787980
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较市售数码显微镜在显微外科工作台模型模拟中的应用。
导言:随着越来越多地使用在线平台促进远程学习,外科教育的培训方式也发生了转变。模拟训练可以增加教育机会,降低成本,同时减少患者风险。本研究旨在比较市售数码显微镜和标准双目手术显微镜,并确定它们是否可用作远程显微外科模拟的替代工具:共收集了四种显微镜的数据,包括三种市售数码显微镜、智能手机和双目台式显微镜。对产品特性进行了整理,并使用 11 项标准问卷进行了主观评估,以 5 分制评分。将数码显微镜的结果与台式双目显微镜的结果进行比较。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验将数码显微镜的性能与标准双目显微镜的性能进行比较 结果:31 名参与者填写了调查问卷:2 名顾问、9 名外科注册医师、14 名初级实习生和 6 名医学生。调查发现,数码显微镜的价格明显更实惠,也更方便学员使用;但智能手机的成本也很高。总体而言,Pancellant 数码显微镜的表现最差,受训人员认为它不适合外科实践;可插拔 USB 数码显微镜 (PLDM) 的总体评价最像双目台式显微镜。所有数码显微镜的景深都较浅:随着远程学习和模拟训练在外科教育中的作用越来越大,PLDM 可以为初级学员提供更便宜、更方便的选择,帮助他们掌握显微外科技能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
80
审稿时长
1 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Free Fasciocutaneous versus Muscle Flaps in Lower Extremity Reconstruction: Implications for Functionality and Quality of Life. Utilizing Perforator Propeller Flaps for Donor Site Closure: Harvesting Large Workhorse Flaps without Lingering Concerns. Oncoplastic Surgery with Volume Replacement versus Mastectomy with Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Early Postoperative Complications in Patients with Breast Cancer. Effect of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Morbidly Obese Patients Undergoing Free Flap Breast Reconstruction. The Vascular Anatomy and Harvesting of the Lateral Femoral Condyle Flap in Pigs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1