No content results match your keyword.
Content
You have successfully logged out.
Not registered yet?
No content results match your keyword.
Content
No product results match your keyword.
Products
Aesculap Aeos®
Imagine beginning your day at 7:30 AM, neck already bent at a 45-degree angle, eyes straining through magnification loupes, hands suspended in microsurgical precision for the next six hours. By mid-afternoon, that familiar burning sensation crawls across your upper trapezius. By evening, it's a dull, persistent ache extending from your cervical spine to your shoulders.
This isn't an uncommon day—it's the routine reality for plastic surgeons worldwide.
The data tells a sobering story: over 80% of surgeons suffer from Work-Related Musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders, accounting for 40% of NHS sickness absences (1-3). For plastic surgeons, this crisis reaches concerning proportions:
A compelling pattern emerges across international research spanning the United States, United Kingdom, and India (4–7). Plastic surgeons face a significantly higher risk of developing MSK conditions than both the general population (8) and surgeons in other specialties (7).
Research highlights a critical correlation: surgeons operating with loupe magnification for more than 15 hours weekly, experience significantly greater cervical MSK symptoms (5). Yet a recent survey reveals plastic surgeons average 22 hours of weekly surgery (9)—far exceeding this threshold.
It’s therefore unsurprising that 77% report pain while using traditional microscopes, with free flap procedures identified as particularly problematic (9).
What makes plastic surgery uniquely hazardous to musculoskeletal health? Three interrelated factors create what could be termed a "biomechanical perfect storm":
These statistics translate to tangible healthcare costs: 14-27 lost working days per MSK episode among plastic surgeons (5)—a substantial burden on an already strained system, not to mention the personal and professional implications for surgeons themselves.
Heads-up 3D microscopy represents a significant technological advancement that directly addresses the ergonomic challenges inherent in microsurgery (15). Initially adopted in ophthalmology (16), this approach has demonstrated remarkable benefits without compromising image quality or technical feasibility (17). By allowing surgeons to operate while maintaining a neutral, upright posture, heads-up systems fundamentally transform the biomechanical experience of microsurgery.
The core principles behind heads-up microscopy—improved ergonomics, enhanced visualisation, and reduced physical strain—represent exactly the kind of innovation needed to address the MSK epidemic among plastic surgeons.
Within the emerging field of heads-up microscope, the Aesculap Aeos® 3D Robotic-Assisted Digital Surgical Microscope represents one compelling option. The Aesculap Aeos® technology utilises advanced display capabilities to eliminate the need for physically demanding postures. Surgeons can maintain a neutral, upright position throughout procedures, reducing the strain on the neck, back, and shoulders that has been documented in the literature (15,18).
Beyond ergonomics, the Aesculap Aeos® system offers:
As one of several technological options becoming available to plastic surgeons, the Aesculap Aeos® system exemplifies how digital visualisation technology is evolving to address long-standing ergonomic challenges in microsurgery.
Aesculap Aeos® represents far more than a technological upgrade—it's an investment in preserving surgical expertise and reducing workforce depletion. When factoring in the costs of sick leave, reduced productivity, and potential early retirement of skilled surgeons, the economic case becomes compelling.
For surgeons themselves, this technology offers a transformative possibility: the opportunity to practice their craft at the highest level without sacrificing physical wellbeing.
As the understanding of surgical ergonomics evolves, it’s becoming clear that technologies like the Aesculap Aeos® aren't merely innovative options—they're becoming essential safeguards for surgical careers and expertise.
In an era of increasing healthcare demands and workforce challenges, addressing the silent epidemic of MSK disorders (3) isn't optional—it's imperative for the future of plastic surgery.
Please visit: Aesculap Aeos® for Plastics - B. Braun
Please contact: Verena Vogel verena1.vogel@bbraun.com +447977538052
Author: Amelia Deacon, Associate Medical Science and Commercial Value Liaison, B. Braun Medical Ltd.
1. Boyle S, Fitzgerald C, Conlon BJ, Vijendren A. A national survey of workplace-related musculoskeletal disorder and ergonomic practices amongst Irish otolaryngologists. Ir J Med Sci. 2022 Apr;191(2):623–8.
2. Riley C, Wilson C, Andrzejowska I, Giri P. Reducing musculoskeletal pain in the operating theatre. BJA Education. 2022 Apr;22(4):154–9.
3. Epstein S, Sparer EH, Tran BN, Ruan QZ, Dennerlein JT, Singhal D, et al. Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Surgeons and Interventionalists: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2018 Feb 21;153(2):e174947.
4. Tobias G, Dodd SX, Wong JN. A Survey of Occupational Musculoskeletal Symptoms Among Canadian Plastic Surgeons and Trainees. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2024 Nov;32(4):722–7.
5. Godwin Y, Macdonald CR, Kaur S, Zhelin L, Baber C. The Impact of Cervical Musculoskeletal Disorders on UK Consultant Plastic Surgeons: Can We Reduce Morbidity With Applied Ergonomics? Annals of Plastic Surgery. 2017 Jun;78(6):602–10.
6. Capone AC, Parikh PM, Gatti ME, Davidson BJ, Davison SP. Occupational Injury in Plastic Surgeons: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2010 May;125(5):1555–61.
7. Khansa I, Khansa L, Westvik TS, Ahmad J, Lista F, Janis JE. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries in Plastic Surgeons in the United States, Canada, and Norway. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 2018 Jan;141(1):165e–75e.
8. Punnett L, Wegman DH. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: the epidemiologic evidence and the debate. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2004 Feb;14(1):13–23.
9. B. Braun Neurosurgery Division. Survey among plastic surgeons at ASit 2024. Annual Conference. In 2024.
10. Nimbarte AD, Sivak-Callcott JA, Zreiqat M, Chapman M. Neck Postures and Cervical Spine Loading Among Microsurgeons Operating with Loupes and Headlamp. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. 2013 Oct;1(4):215–23.
11. Hansraj KK. Assessment of stresses in the cervical spine caused by posture and position of the head. Surg Technol Int. 2014 Nov;25:277–9.
12. Lindegård A, Gustafsson M, Hansson GÅ. Effects of prismatic glasses including optometric correction on head and neck kinematics, perceived exertion and comfort during dental work in the oral cavity – A randomised controlled intervention. Applied Ergonomics. 2012 Jan;43(1):246–53.
13. Yu D, Kasten S, Green C, Armstrong TJ. Task analysis of microsurgery and biomechanical modeling of surgeons to assess static-workloads. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2013 Sep;57(1):1790–4.
14. Nimbarte A, Zreiqat M, Chapman M, Sivak-Callcott J. Physical risk factors for neck pain among oculoplastic surgeons. IISE Annual ConferenceProceedings. 2012;1–6.
15. Sleiwah A, Mohanna P, AsJoe M H, Roblin P, Uppal L, Mughal M. Heads up reconstructive microsurgery: Utilisation of the three-dimensional microscope in microvascular procedures. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2022 Feb;75(2):893–939.
16. Zeng R, Feng Y, Begaj T, Baldwin G, Miller JB. Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of a 3-Dimensional Heads-up Display vs a Standard Operating Microscope in Retinal Detachment Repair. Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases. 2023 Mar;7(2):97–102.
17. Mendez BM, Chiodo MV, Vandevender D, Patel PA. Heads-up 3D Microscopy: An Ergonomic and Educational Approach to Microsurgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open. 2016 May;4(5):e717.
18. Giorgi PD, Pallotta ML, Legrenzi S, Nardi M, Andrea M, Schirò GR. Spinal cord compression in thoracolumbar burst fractures: application of high-definition three-dimensional exoscope in minimally invasive lateral surgery. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022 Jul 26;33(5):2173–7.
19. Della Pepa GM, Mattogno P, Menna G, Agostini L, Olivi A, Doglietto F. A Comparative Analysis with Exoscope and Optical Microscope for Intraoperative Visualization and Surgical Workflow in 5-Aminolevulinic Acid–Guided Resection of High-Grade Gliomas. World Neurosurgery. 2023 Feb;170:133–7.
20. Motov S, Bonk MN, Krauss P, Wolfert C, Steininger K, Picht T, et al. Implementation of a three-dimensional (3D) robotic digital microscope (AEOS) in spinal procedures. Sci Rep. 2022 Dec 29;12(1):22553.
21. Calvanese F, Auricchio AM, Vasankari V, Raj R, Gallè CLC, Niemelä M, et al. Digital 3D Exoscope is Safe and Effective in Surgery for Intradural Extramedullary Tumors: A Comparative Series. World Neurosurgery. 2024 Apr;184:e1–8.
22. Veldeman M, Rossmann T, Huhtakangas J, Nurminen V, Eisenring C, Sinkkonen ST, et al. Three-Dimensional Exoscopic Versus Microscopic Resection of Vestibular Schwannomas: A Comparative Series. Operative Neurosurgery. 2023 May;24(5):507–13.
23. Auricchio AM, Calvanese F, Vasankari V, Raj R, Gallé CLC, Niemelä M, et al. Digital exoscope versus surgical microscope in spinal dural arteriovenous fistula surgery: a comparative series. Neurosurgical Focus. 2024 Mar;56(3):E13.