Jianmongkol Surut, Vinitpairot Chaiyos, Thitiworakarn Navapong, Wattanakamolchai Settapon
Hand and Reconstructive Unit, Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Arch Plast Surg. 2022 Jan;49(1):121-126. doi: 10.5999/aps.2021.01340. Epub 2022 Jan 15.
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.
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.
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).
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.
尽管配备高分辨率屏幕和高清摄像头的智能手机可能无法取代使用手术显微镜的标准训练方法，但它们是练习显微外科技术的一种有吸引力的替代选择。它们随处可见，操作简单且价格低廉。本研究比较了使用智能手机摄像头与标准手术显微镜进行鸡股血管吻合的情况。
将40例非活体鸡股血管吻合分为四组。一名住院医师和一名经验丰富的显微外科医生分别使用智能手机摄像头和手术显微镜，用8-0和10-0缝线进行鸡股血管吻合。使用Mann-Whitney U检验比较完成吻合的时间和吻合错误的数量。
经验丰富的显微外科医生使用智能手机进行吻合所需的时间明显更长（中位数：32.5分钟对20分钟，P<0.001）。住院医师使用两种设备完成吻合的手术时间没有显著差异。使用智能手机时，住院医师和经验丰富的显微外科医生的手术时间没有显著差异（P=0.238）。住院医师在使用智能手机或手术显微镜时，手术时间和错误数量没有显著差异（分别为P=1.000和P=0.065）。
使用非活体鸡股血管进行显微外科操作可以通过智能手机完成，尽管对于经验丰富的显微外科医生来说，这可能比使用手术显微镜花费的时间更长。与使用手术显微镜相比，住院医师在使用智能手机时可能也会感到沮丧，并且更容易出现吻合错误。
