Comparative Learning Curves of Microscope Versus Exoscope: A Preclinical Randomized Crossover Noninferiority Study
Hugo Layard Horsfall1,2, Zeqian Mao1, Chan Hee Koh1,2
1Victor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, United Kingdom.
Background:
An exoscope heralds a new era of optics in surgery. However, there is limited quantitative evidence describing and comparing the learning curve.
Objectives:
This study aimed to investigate the learning curve, plateau, and rate of novice surgeons using an Olympus ORBEYE exoscope compared to an operating microscope (Carl Zeiss OPMI PENTERO or KINEVO 900).
Methods:
A preclinical, randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial assessed the performance of seventeen novice and seven expert surgeons completing the microsurgical grape dissection task "Star's the limit." A standardized star was drawn on a grape using a stencil with a 5 mm edge length. Participants cut the star and peeled the star-shaped skin off the grape with microscissors and forceps while minimizing damage to the grape flesh. Participants repeated the task 20 times consecutively for each optical device. Learning was assessed using model functions such as the Weibull function, and the cognitive workload was assessed with the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX).
Results:
Seventeen novice (male:female 12:5; median years of training 0.4 [0-2.8 years]) and six expert (male:female 4:2; median years of training 10 [8.9-24 years]) surgeons were recruited. "Star's the limit" was validated using a performance score that gave a threshold of expert performance of 70 (0-100). The learning rate (ORBEYE -0.94 ± 0.37; microscope -1.30 ± 0.46) and learning plateau (ORBEYE 64.89 ± 8.81; microscope 65.93 ± 9.44) of the ORBEYE were significantly noninferior compared to those of the microscope group (p = 0.009; p = 0.027, respectively). The cognitive workload on NASA-TLX was higher for the ORBEYE. Novices preferred the freedom of movement and ergonomics of the ORBEYE but preferred the visualization of the microscope.
Conclusions:
This is the first study to quantify the ORBEYE learning curve and the first randomized controlled trial to compare the ORBEYE learning curve to that of the microscope. The plateau performance and learning rate of the ORBEYE are significantly noninferior to those of the microscope in a preclinical grape dissection task. This study also supports the ergonomics of the ORBEYE as reported in preliminary observational studies and highlights visualization as a focus for further development.
More Related Videos
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
06:19In Vivo Imaging of Cx3cr1gfp/gfp Reporter Mice with Spectral-domain Optical Coherence Tomography and Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy
Published on: November 11, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Phase Contrast and Differential Interference Contrast Microscopy
In-phase-contrast microscopes, interference between light directly passing through a cell and light refracted by cellular components is used to create high-contrast, high-resolution images without staining. It is the oldest and simplest type of microscope that creates an image by altering the wavelengths of light rays passing through the specimen. Altered wavelength paths are created using an annular stop in the condenser. The annular stop produces a hollow cone of...
Imaging Biological Samples with Optical Microscopy
In optical microscopy, the specimen to be viewed is placed on a glass slide and clipped on the stage...
Bioequivalence: Overview
