Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 155, Issue 12, pp 2299–2303 | Cite as

Surgical fidelity: comparing the microscope and the endoscope

  • Martin Cote
  • Ricky Kalra
  • Taylor Wilson
  • Richard R. Orlandi
  • William T. CouldwellEmail author
Clinical Article - Neurosurgical Techniques

Abstract

Background

Both the microscope and the endoscope are widely used as visualization tools in neurosurgery; however, surgical dexterity when operating with each may differ. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical fidelity when using each of these visualization tools.

Methods

Junior residents and expert surgeons performed standardized motor tasks under microscopic and endoscopic visualization. Demerits for inaccuracy and time needed to complete the tasks were used to compare the surgeons’ performance with the microscope and the endoscope. The participants also performed a motor task under direct vision using different instruments to evaluate whether the shape of the instrument had any impact on the surgical fidelity.

Results

For the junior residents, the number of demerits accrued was lower with the microscope than with the endoscope, and the time needed to complete the tasks was also lower with the microscope. There was no difference in the number of demerits between the microscopic and the endoscopic experts, but the microscopic expert completed the task in a shorter time. There was no difference in demerits or performance time when comparing a short, straight instrument and a longer, bayoneted one.

Conclusions

For junior residents, surgical fidelity is higher with the microscope than with the endoscope. This difference vanishes with experience, but a slower speed of execution is observed with endoscopic visualization, both in junior and expert surgeons.

Keywords

Microsurgery Endoscopy Surgical fidelity Task performance Learning curve 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the surgeons who participated in our trials and Kristin Kraus, MSc, for editorial assistance with this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Supplementary material

Video 1

Video demonstrates how the tests of surgical fidelity were completed and illustrates these completions in real time. (MP4 32233 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, de Divitiis E (2004) Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 55:933–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrabba G, Dehdashti AR, Gentili F (2008) Surgery for clival lesions: open resection versus the expanded endoscopic endonasal approach. Neurosurg Focus 25(6):E7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castelnuovo P, Battaglia P, Turri-Zanoni M, Volpi L, Bignami M, Dallan I (2012) Transnasal skull base reconstruction using a 3-D endoscope: our first impressions. J Neurol Surg 73:85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen JC, Levy ML, Corber Z, Assifi MM (1999) Concurrent three-dimensional neuroendoscopy: initial descriptions of application to clinical practice. Neurosurg Focus 6(4):e12Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Divitiis E, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, de Divitiis O, Messina A (2007) Extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach for extrasellar craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery 61(5 Suppl 2):219–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ebner FH, Roser F, Thaher F, Schittenhelm J, Tatagiba M (2010) Balancing the shortcomings of microscope and endoscope: endoscope-assisted technique in microsurgical removal of recurrent epidermoid cysts in the posterior fossa. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53:218–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fatemi N, Dusick JR, de Paiva Neto MA, Malkasian D, Kelly DF (2009) Endonasal versus supraorbital keyhole removal of craniopharyngiomas and tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurgery 64(5 Suppl 2):269–284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felisati G, Pipolo C, Maccari A, Cardia A, Revay M, Lasio GB (2013) Transnasal 3D endoscopic skull base surgery: questionnaire-based analysis of the learning curve in 52 procedures. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:2249–2253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Lederman AB, McClusky DA 3rd, Smith CD (2005) Video-assisted surgery represents more than a loss of three-dimensional vision. Am J Surg 189:76–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gielen CC, Dijkstra TM, Roozen IJ, Welten J (2009) Coordination of gaze and hand movements for tracking and tracing in 3D. Cortex 45:340–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hubber JW, Taffinder N, Russell RC, Darzi A (2003) The effects of different viewing conditions on performance in simulated minimal access surgery. Ergonomics 46:999–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2011) The endoscope-assisted ventral approach compared with open microscope-assisted surgery for clival chordomas. World Neurosurg 76:318–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2012) Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg 77:329–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Malley BW Jr, Grady MS, Gabel BC, Cohen MA, Heuer GG, Pisapia J, Bohman LE, Leibowitz JM (2008) Comparison of endoscopic and microscopic removal of pituitary adenomas: single-surgeon experience and the learning curve. Neurosurg Focus 25(6):E10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patel HR, Ribal MJ, Arya M, Nauth-Misir R, Joseph JV (2007) Is it worth revisiting laparoscopic three-dimensional visualization? A validated assessment. Urology 70:47–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schroeder HW, Hickmann AK, Baldauf J (2011) Endoscope-assisted microsurgical resection of skull base meningiomas. Neurosurg Rev 34:441–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schroeder HW, Oertel J, Gaab MR (2004) Endoscope-assisted microsurgical resection of epidermoid tumors of the cerebellopontine angle. J Neurosurg 101:227–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith R, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M, Jourdan I (2012) Advanced stereoscopic projection technology significantly improves novice performance of minimally invasive surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26:1522–1527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A (2012) 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc 26:1454–1460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tabaee A, Anand VK, Fraser JF, Brown SM, Singh A, Schwartz TH (2009) Three-dimensional endoscopic pituitary surgery. Neurosurgery 64:288–293, discussion 294–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Gompel JJ, Frank G, Pasquini E, Zoli M, Hoover J, Lanzino G (2011) Expanded endonasal endoscopic resection of anterior fossa meningiomas: report of 13 cases and meta-analysis of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 30(5):E15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Votanopoulos K, Brunicardi FC, Thornby J, Bellows CF (2008) Impact of three-dimensional vision in laparoscopic training. World J Surg 32:110–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A, Horgan S, Candinas D, Vorburger SA (2012) Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc 26:2961–2968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Cote
    • 1
  • Ricky Kalra
    • 1
  • Taylor Wilson
    • 1
  • Richard R. Orlandi
    • 2
  • William T. Couldwell
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences CenterUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Division of OtolaryngologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations