An Intraoperative Three-Dimensional Imaging System for Better Image Sharing and Protection of Reconstructive Surgeons’ Neck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".