Published papers

© 2018 Elsevier B.V. Objective: To evaluate the pros and cons of using a newly developed microscope, ORBEYE™, during microneurosurgery. Patients and methods: ORBEYE™ use in 14 microneurosurgical procedures was retrospectively assessed by nine neurosurgeons after the procedure. A questionnaire comprising 20 questions was designed and used for evaluation. Results: Compared with the current gold standard, the binocular microscope, ease of setting up the equipment was scored the highest, whereas ease of conducting surgery in a position of an assistant was scored the lowest. Among characteristics of ORBEYE™ itself, the space-saving feature was scored the highest and was followed by the ability to perform procedures in a comfortable position. The only characteristic that was rated below average was ease of operation in a position of an assistant. Neurosurgeons with greater experience (more than five procedures using ORBEYE™) provided significantly higher scores (p = 0.0196) for characteristics of ORBEYE™ itself compared with neurosurgeon with fewer ORBEYE™ experience. Conclusions: The main benefits of the ORBEYETM are its compact size and freedom from focusing through the eye lens of a conventional binocular microscope. However, it appears to be disadvantageous for operating in a position of an assistant because the surgical field has a rotated view on the monitor from a position of an assistant. Nonetheless, because of certain advantages, we believe the ORBEYE™ could be of additional help to use of conventional binocular microscope at the moment and will facilitate microneurosurgery in the future.

Although credit is given to Sir William Gull for highlighting the clinical picture of subarachnoid hemorrhage in 1859, we discuss a case presented by Mr. Egerton A. Jennings, Fellow of the Linnaean Society, published 23 years earlier in the 1836 edition of the Transactions of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association. This case, probably the first reported in the English language of a basilar aneurysm rupture, is of medico-historical interest. Jennings provided a remarkably accurate and detailed description of the patient, who experienced coma as a result of the severity of subarachnoid hemorrhage. The detailed clinical observations on initial assessment and the description of the patient's deterioration to the time of death are a succinct representation of the natural history of this disease. The author's discussion provides evidence of a philosophy committed to medical education and progress at the time based on principles of rational observation, meticulous clinical acumen, insight into experimental physiology, and the awareness of ethical boundaries. In provincial 1836 England, similar to most of Europe, cerebral localization was elementary. Nonetheless, this case report highlights the attempt at linking structure to function by means of observation on the effects of lesioning. It provides evidence of an established thought process already in progress in England in the 19th century. It is characteristic that this thought process came from a surgical practitioner. The cultivation of practical observation in British surgical culture would allow the late 19th century surgeon scientists to match the contributions of British neurologists with landmark steps in the development and establishment of neurosurgery.