It is possible to perform a peripheral neurorrhaphy in rats through video system magnification, but with a longer surgical time.

The surgical microscope is still essential for microsurgery, but several alternatives that show promising results are currently under development, such as endoscopes and laparoscopes with video systems; however, as yet, these have only been used for arterial anastomoses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a low-cost video-assisted magnification system in replantation of the hindlimbs of rats. Thirty Wistar rats were randomly divided into two matched groups according to the magnification system used: the microscope group, with hindlimb replantation performed under a microscope with an image magnification of 40× and the video group, with the procedures performed under a video system composed of a high-definition camcorder, macrolenses, a 42-in television, and a digital HDMI cable. The camera was set to 50× magnification. We analyzed weight, arterial and venous caliber, total surgery time, arterial and venous anastomosis time, patency immediately and 7 days postoperatively, the number of stitches, and survival rate. There were no significant differences between the groups in weight, arterial or venous caliber, or the number of stitches. Replantation under the video system took longer ( < 0.05). Patency rates were similar between groups, both immediately and 7 days postoperatively. It is possible to perform a hindlimb replantation in rats through video system magnification, with a satisfactory success rate comparable with that for procedures performed under surgical microscopes.

Background. A literature review of the use of video systems for magnification has suggested that so far, this novel magnification system has only been used to perform arterial anastomoses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of 2 low-cost methods of video-assisted magnification in microvascular venous anastomosis in rats. Methods. Thirty rats were randomly divided into 3 matched groups according to the magnification system used: the microscope group, with venous anastomosis performed under a microscope; the camcorder system group, with the procedures performed under a high-definition Handycam HDR-XR160; and the Photographic camera group, for which procedures were performed with an EOS Rebel T3i photographic camera. In both video system groups, a magnification system was connected to a 42-in. television by an HDMI cable. We analyzed weight, venous caliber, total surgery and anastomosis time, patency immediately and 14 days postoperatively, number of stitches, and histological analyses. Results. There were no significant differences between the groups in weight, venous caliber, or number of stitches. Anastomosis under the video systems took longer. Patency rates were similar between the groups, except for the photographic system group that has a lower patency rate at 14 days. The histological analyses were similar in all groups. Conclusion. It is possible to perform a venous anastomosis in rats through video system magnification, with a satisfactory success rate comparable with that for procedures performed under microscopes; however, the kind of video system has a great influence on the final patency.