Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model

  • Jianmongkol, Surut (Hand and Reconstructive Unit, Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University) ;
  • Vinitpairot, Chaiyos (Hand and Reconstructive Unit, Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University) ;
  • Thitiworakarn, Navapong (Hand and Reconstructive Unit, Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University) ;
  • Wattanakamolchai, Settapon (Hand and Reconstructive Unit, Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University)
  • Received : 2021.06.22
  • Accepted : 2021.09.30
  • Published : 2022.01.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Mobasheri MH, Johnston M, Syed UM, et al. The uses of smartphones and tablet devices in surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery 2015;158:1352-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.03.029
  2. Kim DM, Kang JW, Kim JK, et al. Microsurgery training using a smartphone. Microsurgery 2015;35:500-1. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.22369
  3. Huotarinen A, Niemela M, Jahromi BR. Easy, efficient, and mobile way to train microsurgical skills during busy life of neurosurgical residency in resource-challenged environment. World Neurosurg 2017;107:358-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.08.024
  4. Malik MM, Hachach-Haram N, Tahir M, et al. Acquisition of basic microsurgery skills using home-based simulation training: a randomised control study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2017;70:478-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.12.011
  5. Karakawa R, Yoshimatsu H, Nakatsukasa S, et al. A new method for microsurgery training using a smartphone and a laptop computer. Microsurgery 2018;38:124-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.30241
  6. Ghabi A, Amar S, Harion M, et al. Microvascular anastomosis using loupes and smartphone magnification: experimental study for application to limited-resource environments. Hand Surg Rehabil 2020;39:92-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hansur.2019.11.004
  7. Teixeira RK, Feijo DH, Valente AL, et al. Can smartphones be used to perform video-assisted microanastomosis? An experimental study. Surg Innov 2019;26:371-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350618822626
  8. Ghanem AM, Al Omran Y, Shatta B, et al. Anastomosis lapse index (ALI): a validated end product assessment tool for simulation microsurgery training. J Reconstr Microsurg 2016;32:233-41. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1568157
  9. Franken RJ, Gupta SC, Banis JC Jr, et al. Microsurgery without a microscope: laboratory evaluation of a three-dimensional on-screen microsurgery system. Microsurgery 1995;16:746-51. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.1920161109
  10. Southern SJ, Ramakrishnan V, Villofane O, et al. Video microsurgery: early experience with an alternative operating magnification system. Microsurgery 2001;21:63-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.1011
  11. Gorman PJ, Mackay DR, Kutz RH, et al. Video microsurgery: evaluation of standard laparoscopic equipment for the practice of microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:864-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200109150-00008
  12. El-Shazly M, El-Sonbaty M, Kamel A, et al. Endoscopic-assisted microsurgery: microsurgery in the new millennium? A comparative experimental study. Br J Plast Surg 2003;56:37-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1226(02)00479-4
  13. El-Shazly M, Chao HW, Cheng MH, et al. Advancement of the endoscopic assisted microsurgery: a clinical experience. Eur J Plast Surg 2005;28:272-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-005-0762-y
  14. Barros RS, Brito MV, Moura GP, et al. Is it possible to do a microvascular anastomosis with an ordinary video camera? Experimental study. J Reconstr Microsurg 2011;27:503-8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1284237
  15. de Barros RS, Brito MV, de Brito MH, et al. Morphofunctional evaluation of end-to-side neurorrhaphy through video system magnification. J Surg Res 2018;221:64-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.08.003
  16. Monteiro de Barros RS, Brito MV, Teixeira RK, et al. High-definition video system for peripheral neurorrhaphy in rats. Surg Innov 2017;24:369-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350617704755
  17. Teixeira RK, Leal RA, Sabba MF, et al. Evaluation of 2 low-cost high-definition video systems for venous anastomosis. Surg Innov 2020;27:373-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620928185
  18. Capkin S, Cavit A, Kaleli T. Microsurgery training with smartphone. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2018;50:443-5. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0661-6015
  19. Eroglu L, Guneren E, Akbas H, et al. Using human hair as suture material in microsurgical practice. J Reconstr Microsurg 2003;19:37-40. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-37189
  20. Luangjarmekorn P, Kitidumrongsook P, Honsawek S. Do-ityourself microsuture from human hair for basic microsurgical training. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019;35:315-21. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1675203
  21. Kang BY, Jeon BJ, Lee KT, et al. Comprehensive analysis of chicken vessels as microvascular anastomosis training model. Arch Plast Surg 2017;44:12-8. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2017.44.1.12
  22. Szabo B, Fazekas L, Ghanem S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of microvascular anastomoses prepared by various suturing techniques. Injury 2020;51:2866-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.02.104