Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 6;13(7):1035.
doi: 10.3390/brainsci13071035.

Exoscopic Microsurgery: A Change of Paradigm in Brain Tumor Surgery? Comparison with Standard Operative Microscope

Andrea Di Cristofori  1   2 , Francesca Graziano  3 , Chiara Benedetta Rui  1   2 , Paola Rebora  3 , Diego Di Caro  1   2 , Gaia Chiarello  4 , Giovanni Stefanoni  5 , Chiara Julita  6 , Santa Florio  7 , Davide Ferlito  1   2 , Gianpaolo Basso  1   7 , Giuseppe Citerio  1   8 , Paolo Remida  7 , Giorgio Carrabba  1   2 , Carlo Giussani  1   2
Affiliations

Exoscopic Microsurgery: A Change of Paradigm in Brain Tumor Surgery? Comparison with Standard Operative Microscope

Andrea Di Cristofori et al. Brain Sci. .

Abstract

Background: The exoscope is a high-definition telescope recently introduced in neurosurgery. In the past few years, several reports have described the advantages and disadvantages of such technology. No studies have compared results of surgery with standard microscope and exoscope in patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM).

Methods: Our retrospective study encompassed 177 patients operated on for GBM (WHO 2021) between February 2017 and August 2022. A total of 144 patients were operated on with a microscope only and the others with a 3D4K exoscope only. All clinical and radiological data were collected. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) have been estimated in the two groups and compared by the Cox model adjusting for potential confounders (e.g., sex, age, Karnofsky performance status, gross total resection, MGMT methylated promoter, and operator's experience).

Results: IDH was mutated in 9 (5.2%) patients and MGMT was methylated in 76 (44.4%). Overall, 122 patients received a gross total resection, 14 patients received a subtotal resection, and 41 patients received a partial resection. During follow-up, 139 (73.5%) patients experienced tumor recurrence and 18.7% of them received a second surgery. After truncation to 12 months, the median PFS for patients operated on with the microscope was 8.82 months, while for patients operated on with the exoscope it was >12 months. Instead, the OS was comparable in the two groups. The multivariable Cox model showed that the use of microscope compared to the exoscope was associated with lower progression-free survival (hazard ratio = 3.55, 95%CI = 1.66-7.56, p = 0.001).

Conclusions: The exoscope has proven efficacy in terms of surgical resection, which was not different to that of the microscope. Furthermore, patients operated on with the exoscope had a longer PFS. A comparable OS was observed between microscope and exoscope, but further prospective studies with longer follow-up are needed.

Keywords: brain tumors; en bloc resection; exoscope; extent of resection; glioblastoma; neurosurgery; operative microscope; perilesional resection; progression-free survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Progression-free survival (PFS) in left part of the figure and overall survival (OS) in overall population in the right part of the figure.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Progression-free survival (PFS), in the left panel, and overall survival (OS), in the right panel, compared between the two instruments.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Results of the Cox regression model on progression-free survival with administrative censoring at 12 months. The left panel reports the name of the variables included in the Cox model and the number of patients (n) in each category. The other two panels report the estimated HR and their95% confidence intervals: the middle panel shows a graphical representation as a forest plot; the p-values of comparisons are in the right panel.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bernardo A. The Changing Face of Technologically Integrated Neurosurgery: Today’s High-Tech Operating Room. World Neurosurg. 2017;106:1001–1014. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.159. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ahmed S.I., Javed G., Mubeen B., Bareeqa S.B., Rasheed H., Rehman A., Phulpoto M.M., Samar S.S., Aziz K. Robotics in neurosurgery: A literature review. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2018;68:258–263. - PubMed
    1. Senders J.T., Arnaout O., Karhade A.V., Dasenbrock H.H., Gormley W.B., Broekman M.L., Smith T.R. Natural and Artificial Intelligence in Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review. Neurosurgery. 2018;83:181–192. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyx384. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Uluç K., Kujoth G.C., Başkaya M.K. Operating microscopes: Past, present, and future. Neurosurg. Focus. 2009;27:E4. doi: 10.3171/2009.6.FOCUS09120. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Miller K.D., Ostrom Q.T., Kruchko C., Patil N., Tihan T., Cioffi G., Fuchs H.E., Waite K.A., Jemal A., Siegel R.L., et al. Brain and other central nervous system tumor statistics, 2021. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2021;71:381–406. doi: 10.3322/caac.21693. - DOI - PubMed