No abstract

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the indications and contraindications for extremity replantation. 2. Outline the sequence and technique of replantation. 3. Identify potential complications of replantation and recognize treatment options. 4. Assess the results of replantation in terms of function and costs versus benefits.

BackgroundAdvances in digital imaging, screen technology, and optics have led to the development of extracorporeal telescopes, also known as exoscopes, as alternatives to surgical loupes (SLs) and traditional operating microscopes (OMs) for surgical magnification. Theoretical advantages of the exoscope over conventional devices include improved surgeon ergonomics; superior three‐dimensional, high‐definition optics; and greater ease‐of‐use. The ORBEYE exoscope, in particular, has demonstrated early efficacy in the surgical arena. The purpose of this study was to compare the ORBEYE with conventional microscopy.MethodsIn this case–control pilot study, we compared the ORBEYE (n = 22) with conventional microscopy (n = 27) across 49 consecutive microsurgical cases during a 6‐week period. Both visualization methods consisted of breast, and head and neck cases, while the ORBEYE was also used for extremity and lymphedema microsurgical cases. The ORBEYE was utilized during flap dissection and microvascular anastomosis. Baseline demographics, operative time, ischemia time, and intra‐ and postoperative microvascular complications were examined and compared. Attending surgeons completed an ergonomics and performance survey postoperatively comparing the ORBEYE with their previous use of SL/OM using a 5‐point Likert scale.ResultsThere was no difference in operative time (507 ± 132 min vs. 522 ± 139, p = .714), ischemia time (77.9 ± 31.4 min vs. 77.5 ± 36.0, p = .972), or microsurgical complications (0% vs. 4%, p = 1) between the ORBEYE and conventional microscopy groups. In a survey administered immediately postoperatively, surgeons reported favorable ergonomics, excellent image quality, and ease of equipment manipulation using the exoscope.ConclusionsThe ORBEYE is an effective microsurgical tool and may be considered as an alternative to conventional optical magnification technology.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the indications for free flap coverage of the upper extremity. 2. Know the advantages and disadvantages of the flaps discussed. 3. Have a basic understanding of the anatomy of the flaps discussed. 4. Have a variety of options for free tissue transfer.The application of microsurgical tissue transfer to reconstruction of the upper extremity allows repair of significant bone and soft-tissue defects. Through the years the approach has changed from one of simply getting the wound covered to primary reconstruction to preserve or regain function. A wide variety of free flaps offers the potential to reconstruct nearly any defect of the arm and hand. Vascularized bone transfer can be utilized to repair large bony defects, while innervated free muscle transfer can replace missing muscle function. The total array of flaps and their indications is beyond the scope of a single discussion, but this article focuses on a few flaps that have found application for coverage and functional restoration in the hand and upper extremity.