MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2885738823 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000004944

An Intraoperative Three-Dimensional Imaging System for Better Image Sharing and Protection of Reconstructive Surgeons’ Neck

2018· letter· en· W2885738823 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuma Fuse, Takumi Yamamoto

Notice bibliographique

RevuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2018
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSurgical Simulation and Training
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMagnificationMicrosurgeryMedicineOperating microscopeAnastomosisSurgical instrumentSurgeryMicroscopeMedical physicsComputer scienceComputer visionPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Sir: We read with great interest the article entitled “Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries in Plastic Surgeons in the United States, Canada, and Norway” by Khansa et al.1 Their work is of clinical significance because they elucidated that plastic surgeons often suffer from musculoskeletal symptoms caused by statistic postures during microsurgery. Since microsurgery was introduced, various operations using the microscope have been performed in plastic surgical fields.2 In ordinary situations, a microscope has been used only for microvessel anastomosis or microdissection. Mendez et al. reported the efficacy of use of the heads-up three-dimensional microscope for anastomosis of small vessels in rats, in comfortable postures.3 In this study, we applied a novel heads-up three-dimensional microscope, with a wide variety of magnifications, to flap elevation, with a favorable advantage. A three-dimensional microscope (KestrelView II; Mitaka Kohki Co., Tokyo, Japan) was set over the surgical field at 300- to 1000-mm working distance. During flap elevation, the surgeon performed the operation while watching the monitor. In accordance with the surgical process, the angle of the camera was adjusted and the magnification was 2× to 5× mainly. The assistant surgeons also watched the same video on the screen set at the opposite side, which enabled them to share the principal surgeon’s view and discuss the surgical procedure (Fig. 1). All of the surgeons were able to see the original surgical field by just looking down. The whole operative video was recorded.Fig. 1.: Surgeons are shown sharing the same surgical view and discussing the operation, using a heads-up three-dimensional microscope in a comfortable posture.Musculoskeletal injuries are common among plastic surgeons.1,4 By using this intraoperative three-dimensional imaging system, surgeons can share the operator’s original view, which enables them to discuss the operation while watching the same video simultaneously. The camera is set at adequate distance for working, so surgeons can perform the surgical procedure without any trouble, in a comfortable posture. In addition, because of its wide range of magnification, the entire operation can be performed under this microscope—from skin incision to vessel anastomosis. Under higher magnification, we can observe tiny anatomy and perform meticulous dissection. Also, operators can compare the microscopic view and the surgical field by just looking down. In ordinary situations, the assistant operator stands at the opposite side of the main surgeon, so they cannot share the main surgeon’s original view: they watch the 180-degree opposite view. However, using this heads-up three-dimensional microscope, all of the surgeons can get the same view. Furthermore, surgical video can be recorded, so this is very useful for review and education. Because this is the first report of the microscope’s application in reconstructive microsurgery, further investigations are required to confirm the efficacy of the microscope. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication. There were no sources of support for this work. Yukari Ando, M.D.Yuma Fuse, M.D.Takumi Yamamoto, M.D., Ph.D.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryNational Center for Global Health and MedicineTokyo, Japan

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,465
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,259
Écart entre enseignants0,230 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgeryMême sujetSurgical Simulation and TrainingTravaux en français237 207