Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5999/aps.2021.01340

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)
Publication Information
Archives of Plastic Surgery / v.49, no.1, 2022 , pp. 121-126 More about this Journal
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
Smartphone; Microsurgery; Blood vessels; Anastomosis, surgical;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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.   DOI
2 Szabo B, Fazekas L, Ghanem S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of microvascular anastomoses prepared by various suturing techniques. Injury 2020;51:2866-73.   DOI
3 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.   DOI
4 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.   DOI
5 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.   DOI
6 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.   DOI
7 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.   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 Southern SJ, Ramakrishnan V, Villofane O, et al. Video microsurgery: early experience with an alternative operating magnification system. Microsurgery 2001;21:63-9.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 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.   DOI
12 Capkin S, Cavit A, Kaleli T. Microsurgery training with smartphone. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2018;50:443-5.   DOI
13 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.   DOI
14 Kim DM, Kang JW, Kim JK, et al. Microsurgery training using a smartphone. Microsurgery 2015;35:500-1.   DOI
15 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.   DOI
16 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.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 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.   DOI
19 Luangjarmekorn P, Kitidumrongsook P, Honsawek S. Do-ityourself microsuture from human hair for basic microsurgical training. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019;35:315-21.   DOI
20 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.   DOI
21 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.   DOI
22 Eroglu L, Guneren E, Akbas H, et al. Using human hair as suture material in microsurgical practice. J Reconstr Microsurg 2003;19:37-40.   DOI