The microscope has been the gold standard in neurosurgical practice due to its ability to magnify anatomical structures. However, it has limitations, including restricted visual fields and ergonomic challenges that can lead to surgeon fatigue and musculoskeletal issues. The exoscope is an emerging technology that may address these limitations by offering comparable magnification with improved ergonomics.
This study compares the traditional microscope (KINEVO 900) with a 3D digital exoscope (Aeos Digital Microscope) in visual field width, image sharpness, and ergonomic impact. Visual field assessments were conducted using millimeter paper at a fixed distance, while image sharpness was evaluated using graph paper with pins at different depths. Ergonomic evaluation involved simulating surgical positions using a spine anatomical model. The practical applicability was tested during Selective Dorsal Rhizotomy (SDR) procedures, comparing the surgeon's experience with both devices over 20 consecutive cases.
The exoscope provided a larger visual field (81.18 cm2) compared to the microscope's (54.10 cm2). Image sharpness was similar for both devices across various depths and zoom levels. Ergonomically, the exoscope allowed the surgeon to maintain a neutral posture while visualizing extreme angles, unlike the microscope, which required significant upper body movement. In SDR procedures, the exoscope improved surgeon comfort and interaction with the operating team, despite an initial learning curve.
The exoscope presents notable advantages in terms of visual field and ergonomics. The exoscope’s ability to facilitate better posture and team communication without compromising image quality makes it an addition to neurosurgical practice, as in SDR.
Despite multiple calls for more inclusive studies, most clinical trial eligibility criteria remain too restrictive. Thrombectomy trials have been no exception.
We review the landmark trials that have shown the benefits of thrombectomy, their eligibility criteria, and consequences on clinical practice. We discuss the rationale behind various reasons for exclusions. We also examine the logical problem involved in using eligibility criteria as indications for treatment.
Most thrombectomy trials have been too restrictive. This has been shown by a plethora of follow-up studies that have refuted most of the previously recommended trial eligibility restrictions. Meanwhile, the effect of clinical recommendations based on restrictive eligibility criteria is that treatment has been denied to the majority of patients who could have benefitted. Trial eligibility criteria cannot be used to make clinical decisions or recommendations unless, like any other medical diagnosis, they have been shown capable of reliably differentiating patients into those that will, and those that will not benefit from treatment. This goal can only be achieved with all-inclusive pragmatic trials.
Restrictive eligibility criteria render clinical trials incapable of guiding medical decisions or recommendations.