Vascular Diameter Determining the Magnification for a Microvascular Anastomosis

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the association between vascular diameters and amount of magnification and to assess the influence of the magnification media on the microanastomosis quality and permeability. Sixty arterial microanostomoses were distributed into three groups: group I (diameter 1.5 mm), group II (1.5 to 2.5 mm), and group III (> 2.5 mm). The models used were carotid artery of Sprague-Dawley rats and carotid and abdominal artery of wild rabbits. In each group, 10 anastomoses were performed with 2.5 × loupes and 10 with 10 × microscope. The total time of anastomosis, the quality of the anastomosis (Gorman scale), and 24-hour permeability rate were measured. The total anastomotic time and quality had statistical differences for the microscope by analyzing the total sample and group I only. The global permeability was 83% for the microscope and 40% for the loupe. The same result was observed in group I but no differences were observed in the other groups. The histology and the survey showed similar results. Microanastomoses performed under a microscope (10 ×) were performed in less time, were of better quality, and had higher permeability rates when compared with those performed under a loupe (2.5 ×). In vessels < 1.5 mm, these differences were statistically significant but in vessels > 1.5 mm no differences were observed.

KEYWORDS

Magnification - microscope - loupe - vascular diameter - microanastomosis

REFERENCES

• 1 Miko I, Brath E, Furka I. Basic teaching in microsurgery.  Microsurgery. 2001;  21 121-123
• 2 Oelsner G, Boeckx W, Verhoeven H, Koninckx P, Brosens I. The effect of training in microsurgery.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;  152 1054-1058
• 3 Teitelbaum S L. Animal rights pressure on scientists.  Science. 2002;  298 1515
• 4 Gorman P J, Mackay D R, Kutz R H, Banducci D R, Haluck R S. Video microsurgery: evaluation of standard laparoscopic equipment for the practice of microsurgery.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;  108 864-869
• 5 Suominen S, Asko-Seljavaara S. Free flap failures.  Microsurgery. 1995;  16 396-399
• 6 Kriss T C, Kriss V M. History of the operating microscope: from magnifying glass to microneurosurgery.  Neurosurgery. 1998;  42 899-907 , discussion 907-898
• 7 Ramakrishnan V V, Villafane O, Southern S. Video microsurgery: a substitute for the operating microscopy?.  Br J Plast Surg. 1997;  50 29 4
• 8 Southern S J, Ramakrishnan V, Villofane O, Watt D A, Sharpe D T. Video microsurgery: early experience with an alternative operating magnification system.  Microsurgery. 2001;  21 63-69
• 9 Spyriounis P K. Use of varioscope in free microvascular tissue transplants.  Microsurgery. 2005;  25 187-190
• 10 Shenaq S M, Klebuc M J, Vargo D. Free-tissue transfer with the aid of loupe magnification: experience with 251 procedures.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;  95 261-269
• 11 Serletti J M, Deuber M A, Guidera P M et al.. Comparison of the operating microscope and loupes for free microvascular tissue transfer.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;  95 270-276
• 12 Ashworth D R, Whear N M, Fan V. Radial free flaps using loupe magnification: audit of 97 cases of orofacial reconstruction.  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;  42 36-37
• 13 Pieptu D, Luchian S. Loupes-only microsurgery.  Microsurgery. 2003;  23 181-188
• 14 Tomaino M M. Routine use of loupe magnification for microvascular anastomoses: at what price?.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;  97 248-249
• 15 Rooks M D, Slappey J, Zusmanis K. Precision of suture placement with microscope- and loupe-assisted anastomoses.  Microsurgery. 1993;  14 547-550