Evaluation of 2 Low-cost High-definition Video Systems for Venous Anastomosis.

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.

Is it possible to do a microvascular anastomosis with an ordinary video camera? Experimental study.

An alternative method of magnification for microvascular anastomosis was analyzed using an ordinary video camera and compared with the traditional method under microscope. For this study 20 rats were divided in two groups of 10 each: control group (microscope-assisted [M]) and experimental group (video-assisted [V]). Magnification was accomplished by a surgical microscope in group M, whereas a video system composed of low-cost camera, audiovisual cable, and analogue television in group V. In both groups, the right femoral artery was severed and sutured with interrupted simple stitches. The criteria examined were: patency, vessel diameter, amount of sutures, anastomosis time, and histologic features. There were no differences between both groups in patency rate and vessel diameter. The video-assisted microanastomosis is a time-consuming procedure as compared with the microscope-assisted anastomosis, to a certain extent due to lack of stereoscopic image and technical inability with the video system as well. There was a smaller quantity of sutures in group V. Higher foreign body tissue reaction was found in group M, consequent to greater amount of suture material. In conclusion, video-assisted microanastomosis is possible with the present video system but is not as safe as conventional microanastomosis.