Maxime Tabey, Xavier Dubernard, Emilien Chebib, Nathaniel Assouly, Le-Uyen France Truong, Marc Labrousse, Esteban Brenet
{"title":"在头颈部重建中使用 3D 外窥镜进行游离皮瓣微吻合术。","authors":"Maxime Tabey, Xavier Dubernard, Emilien Chebib, Nathaniel Assouly, Le-Uyen France Truong, Marc Labrousse, Esteban Brenet","doi":"10.1111/coa.14255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of the 3D exoscope in cervicofacial reconstruction has demonstrated its effectiveness, yet few studies have compared its utility to that of the microscope.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the reliability of microanastomoses performed with both tools, along with postoperative outcomes and user experience.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective single-center study that included all cases of microanastomosed forearm or fibula free flap reconstructions performed between June 2019 and June 2022. For each procedure, microsurgical characteristics were collected and compared. The primary outcome measure was the reliability of anastomoses (lack of intraoperative events and absence of early surgical revisions). Secondary outcome measures pertained to postoperative evolution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty patients underwent microanastomosed flap reconstruction (20 forearm flaps, 20 fibula flaps) using either a microscope (n = 10 in each group) or a 3D exoscope (n = 10 in each group). Patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. No significant difference was observed between the use of the microscope and the 3D exoscope in terms of anastomosis reliability; OR = 2.07 [0.09-130.88], p = 1. No differences were noted between the two groups in postoperative outcomes except for a shorter hospitalization period for patients undergoing forearm flap reconstruction with the exoscope compared to the microscope (p = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of the 3D exoscope appears to be an interesting alternative to the microscope in cervicofacial reconstruction due to similar microsurgical results, good ergonomics and significant pedagogical appeal.</p>","PeriodicalId":10431,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Otolaryngology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of 3D Exoscope for Free Flaps Microanastomosis in Head and Neck Reconstruction.\",\"authors\":\"Maxime Tabey, Xavier Dubernard, Emilien Chebib, Nathaniel Assouly, Le-Uyen France Truong, Marc Labrousse, Esteban Brenet\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/coa.14255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of the 3D exoscope in cervicofacial reconstruction has demonstrated its effectiveness, yet few studies have compared its utility to that of the microscope.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the reliability of microanastomoses performed with both tools, along with postoperative outcomes and user experience.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective single-center study that included all cases of microanastomosed forearm or fibula free flap reconstructions performed between June 2019 and June 2022. For each procedure, microsurgical characteristics were collected and compared. The primary outcome measure was the reliability of anastomoses (lack of intraoperative events and absence of early surgical revisions). Secondary outcome measures pertained to postoperative evolution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty patients underwent microanastomosed flap reconstruction (20 forearm flaps, 20 fibula flaps) using either a microscope (n = 10 in each group) or a 3D exoscope (n = 10 in each group). Patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. No significant difference was observed between the use of the microscope and the 3D exoscope in terms of anastomosis reliability; OR = 2.07 [0.09-130.88], p = 1. No differences were noted between the two groups in postoperative outcomes except for a shorter hospitalization period for patients undergoing forearm flap reconstruction with the exoscope compared to the microscope (p = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of the 3D exoscope appears to be an interesting alternative to the microscope in cervicofacial reconstruction due to similar microsurgical results, good ergonomics and significant pedagogical appeal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Otolaryngology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Otolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.14255\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.14255","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Use of 3D Exoscope for Free Flaps Microanastomosis in Head and Neck Reconstruction.
Background: The use of the 3D exoscope in cervicofacial reconstruction has demonstrated its effectiveness, yet few studies have compared its utility to that of the microscope.
Objective: To compare the reliability of microanastomoses performed with both tools, along with postoperative outcomes and user experience.
Patients and methods: This was a retrospective single-center study that included all cases of microanastomosed forearm or fibula free flap reconstructions performed between June 2019 and June 2022. For each procedure, microsurgical characteristics were collected and compared. The primary outcome measure was the reliability of anastomoses (lack of intraoperative events and absence of early surgical revisions). Secondary outcome measures pertained to postoperative evolution.
Results: Forty patients underwent microanastomosed flap reconstruction (20 forearm flaps, 20 fibula flaps) using either a microscope (n = 10 in each group) or a 3D exoscope (n = 10 in each group). Patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. No significant difference was observed between the use of the microscope and the 3D exoscope in terms of anastomosis reliability; OR = 2.07 [0.09-130.88], p = 1. No differences were noted between the two groups in postoperative outcomes except for a shorter hospitalization period for patients undergoing forearm flap reconstruction with the exoscope compared to the microscope (p = 0.03).
Conclusion: The use of the 3D exoscope appears to be an interesting alternative to the microscope in cervicofacial reconstruction due to similar microsurgical results, good ergonomics and significant pedagogical appeal.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Otolaryngology is a bimonthly journal devoted to clinically-oriented research papers of the highest scientific standards dealing with:
current otorhinolaryngological practice
audiology, otology, balance, rhinology, larynx, voice and paediatric ORL
head and neck oncology
head and neck plastic and reconstructive surgery
continuing medical education and ORL training
The emphasis is on high quality new work in the clinical field and on fresh, original research.
Each issue begins with an editorial expressing the personal opinions of an individual with a particular knowledge of a chosen subject. The main body of each issue is then devoted to original papers carrying important results for those working in the field. In addition, topical review articles are published discussing a particular subject in depth, including not only the opinions of the author but also any controversies surrounding the subject.
• Negative/null results
In order for research to advance, negative results, which often make a valuable contribution to the field, should be published. However, articles containing negative or null results are frequently not considered for publication or rejected by journals. We welcome papers of this kind, where appropriate and valid power calculations are included that give confidence that a negative result can be relied upon.