A comparison of using a smartphone versus a surgical microscope for microsurgical anastomosis in a non-living model

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

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Glenn Neville Borlace for editing the manuscript via the Publication Clinic, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

Publication History

Received: 22 June 2021

Accepted: 30 September 2021

Article published online:
02 June 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 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
• 2 Kim DM, Kang JW, Kim JK. et al. Microsurgery training using a smartphone. Microsurgery 2015; 35: 500-1
• 3 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
• 4 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
• 5 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
• 6 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
• 7 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
• 8 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
• 9 Franken RJ, Gupta SC, Banis Jr JC. et al. Microsurgery without a microscope: laboratory evaluation of a three-dimensional on-screen microsurgery system. Microsurgery 1995; 16: 746-51
• 10 Southern SJ, Ramakrishnan V, Villofane O. et al. Video microsurgery: early experience with an alternative operating magnification system. Microsurgery 2001; 21: 63-9
• 11 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
• 12 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
• 13 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
• 14 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
• 15 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
• 16 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
• 17 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
• 18 Capkin S, Cavit A, Kaleli T. Microsurgery training with smartphone. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2018; 50: 443-5
• 19 Eroglu L, Guneren E, Akbas H. et al. Using human hair as suture material in microsurgical practice. J Reconstr Microsurg 2003; 19: 37-40
• 20 Luangjarmekorn P, Kitidumrongsook P, Honsawek S. Do-ityourself microsuture from human hair for basic microsurgical training. J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35: 315-21
• 21 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
• 22 Szabo B, Fazekas L, Ghanem S. et al. Biomechanical comparison of microvascular anastomoses prepared by various suturing techniques. Injury 2020; 51: 2866-73