在颈椎前路椎间盘切除和融合术(ACDF)中使用低成本外窥镜与显微镜的比较调查研究。

Frontiers in Medical Technology Pub Date : 2023-01-04 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmedt.2022.1055189
Manuel Encarnacion Ramirez, Ismael Peralta Baez, Renat Nurmukhametov, Efgeni Goncharov, Ibrahim E Efe, Albert Sufianov, Issael Ramirez Pena
{"title":"在颈椎前路椎间盘切除和融合术(ACDF)中使用低成本外窥镜与显微镜的比较调查研究。","authors":"Manuel Encarnacion Ramirez, Ismael Peralta Baez, Renat Nurmukhametov, Efgeni Goncharov, Ibrahim E Efe, Albert Sufianov, Issael Ramirez Pena","doi":"10.3389/fmedt.2022.1055189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an often performed procedure in spine neurosurgery. These are often performed using an operating microscope (OM) for better illumination and visualization. But its use is limited to the surgeon and the assistant. There is difficulty in maneuvering long surgical instruments due to the limited space available. Exoscope (EX) has been used as an alternative to microscopes and endoscopes. We used an EX in patients undergoing ACDF for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective comparative trial was conducted to test the safety and usability of a low-cost EX compared to a conventional surgical binocular OM in ACDF. Twenty-six patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy symptoms were operated by ACDF assisted by the EX and OM between December 2021 and June 2022. The authors collected and compared data on operative time, intraoperative hemorrhage, hospital admission, and complications in the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in mean operative time, hospital stay, or postoperative complications. The average intraoperative blood loss was significantly more in the OM group. There were no surgical complications related to the use of the EX or OM. The comfort level, preoperative setup and intraoperative adjustment of position and angle of the EX were rated higher than the OM group. The image quality, depth perception, and illumination were rated as inferior to that of the OM. The low-cost EX was rated to be superior to that of the OM with regard to education and training purposes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study showed that the low-cost EX appears to be a safe and effective alternative for OM-assisted ACDF with great comfort and ergonomics and serves as an essential tool for education and training purposes. However, some limitations of our EX included slightly inferior image quality and illumination when compared with the OM.</p>","PeriodicalId":12599,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medical Technology","volume":"4 ","pages":"1055189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9846206/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative survey study of the use of a low cost exoscope vs. microscope for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).\",\"authors\":\"Manuel Encarnacion Ramirez, Ismael Peralta Baez, Renat Nurmukhametov, Efgeni Goncharov, Ibrahim E Efe, Albert Sufianov, Issael Ramirez Pena\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fmedt.2022.1055189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an often performed procedure in spine neurosurgery. These are often performed using an operating microscope (OM) for better illumination and visualization. But its use is limited to the surgeon and the assistant. There is difficulty in maneuvering long surgical instruments due to the limited space available. Exoscope (EX) has been used as an alternative to microscopes and endoscopes. We used an EX in patients undergoing ACDF for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective comparative trial was conducted to test the safety and usability of a low-cost EX compared to a conventional surgical binocular OM in ACDF. Twenty-six patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy symptoms were operated by ACDF assisted by the EX and OM between December 2021 and June 2022. The authors collected and compared data on operative time, intraoperative hemorrhage, hospital admission, and complications in the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in mean operative time, hospital stay, or postoperative complications. The average intraoperative blood loss was significantly more in the OM group. There were no surgical complications related to the use of the EX or OM. The comfort level, preoperative setup and intraoperative adjustment of position and angle of the EX were rated higher than the OM group. The image quality, depth perception, and illumination were rated as inferior to that of the OM. The low-cost EX was rated to be superior to that of the OM with regard to education and training purposes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study showed that the low-cost EX appears to be a safe and effective alternative for OM-assisted ACDF with great comfort and ergonomics and serves as an essential tool for education and training purposes. However, some limitations of our EX included slightly inferior image quality and illumination when compared with the OM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Medical Technology\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"1055189\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9846206/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Medical Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmedt.2022.1055189\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medical Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmedt.2022.1055189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:颈椎前路椎间盘切除和融合术(ACDF)是脊柱神经外科经常实施的手术。这些手术通常使用手术显微镜(OM)进行,以获得更好的照明和可视化效果。但其使用仅限于外科医生和助手。由于空间有限,很难操作长的手术器械。外窥镜(EX)已被用作显微镜和内窥镜的替代品。我们在接受 ACDF 治疗颈椎病的患者中使用了 EX:我们进行了一项前瞻性比较试验,以测试低成本 EX 与传统手术双目 OM 相比,在 ACDF 中的安全性和可用性。在2021年12月至2022年6月期间,26名具有退行性颈椎脊髓病症状的患者在EX和OM的辅助下接受了ACDF手术。作者收集并比较了两组患者的手术时间、术中出血、入院时间和并发症等数据:结果:两组在平均手术时间、住院时间和术后并发症方面没有明显的统计学差异。OM组的术中平均失血量明显高于OM组。使用 EX 或 OM 均未出现手术并发症。EX组的舒适度、术前设置以及术中位置和角度调整均高于OM组。图像质量、深度感知和照明被评为不如 OM。在教育和培训方面,低成本 EX 被评为优于 OM:我们的研究表明,低成本 EX 似乎是 OM 辅助 ACDF 的一种安全有效的替代方法,具有极佳的舒适性和人体工学设计,是教育和培训的重要工具。然而,与 OM 相比,我们的 EX 存在一些局限性,包括图像质量和照明稍差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Comparative survey study of the use of a low cost exoscope vs. microscope for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an often performed procedure in spine neurosurgery. These are often performed using an operating microscope (OM) for better illumination and visualization. But its use is limited to the surgeon and the assistant. There is difficulty in maneuvering long surgical instruments due to the limited space available. Exoscope (EX) has been used as an alternative to microscopes and endoscopes. We used an EX in patients undergoing ACDF for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Methods: A prospective comparative trial was conducted to test the safety and usability of a low-cost EX compared to a conventional surgical binocular OM in ACDF. Twenty-six patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy symptoms were operated by ACDF assisted by the EX and OM between December 2021 and June 2022. The authors collected and compared data on operative time, intraoperative hemorrhage, hospital admission, and complications in the two groups.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in mean operative time, hospital stay, or postoperative complications. The average intraoperative blood loss was significantly more in the OM group. There were no surgical complications related to the use of the EX or OM. The comfort level, preoperative setup and intraoperative adjustment of position and angle of the EX were rated higher than the OM group. The image quality, depth perception, and illumination were rated as inferior to that of the OM. The low-cost EX was rated to be superior to that of the OM with regard to education and training purposes.

Conclusion: Our study showed that the low-cost EX appears to be a safe and effective alternative for OM-assisted ACDF with great comfort and ergonomics and serves as an essential tool for education and training purposes. However, some limitations of our EX included slightly inferior image quality and illumination when compared with the OM.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Case Report: The effect of automated manual lymphatic drainage therapy on lymphatic contractility in 4 distinct cases Detection of natural autoimmunity to ghrelin in diabetes mellitus Ensuring safety and efficacy in combination products: regulatory challenges and best practices Augmented reality-based software (Echo-QR) for guiding the echographic probe toward the acoustic window: a pilot study Ethical considerations in the regulation and use of herbal medicines in the European Union
×
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