Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Magnification with accurate optic reproduction of the surgical field is essential in otology surgery, but current technologies are subject to specific disadvantages. This study aims to evaluate a novel 3D digital stereo viewer, the Deep Reality Viewer (DRV), in otology surgery, in comparison to both a 2D monitor and the gold standard of microscopy.
Methods: In this prospective clinical research study, ENT consultants and trainees evaluated visual and practical applications of the DRV. In visual assessment, participants (n = 11) viewed pre-recorded in vivo mastoid exploration displayed on a 2D monitor and the DRV screen. In practical assessment, participants (n = 9) performed otology surgical tasks on a cadaveric human head using both the microscope and DRV. Face, task-specific (TSV) and global content (GCV) outcomes were assessed using 5-point Likert scale questionnaires. Construct validity was assessed separately.
Results: The DRV achieved the pre-determined validation threshold of 4 for all validation parameters in both visual and practical assessment. The DRV significantly outperformed the 2D monitor in fourteen of 16 parameters. In comparison to microscopy, there was no significant difference in 13 of 16 parameters, with the DRV significantly outperforming in the remaining 3: defining anatomy (GCV), assessing middle ear anatomy (TSV) and overall TSV. Construct validity was not demonstrated for either technology.
Conclusion: The DRV achieved the validation threshold for all parameters, and outperformed the 2D monitor and microscopy in several parameters. This validates the DRV for performing otological procedures, and suggests that it would be a useful alternative to the gold standard of microscopy in otology surgery.
Level Of Evidence: N/A.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8861478 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07305-x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!