PURPOSE: To investigate, whether capsulorhexis training on the EYESi surgical simulator improves wet-lab operating performance of surgical novices. METHODS: Randomized, masked experimental study. Thirty-one medical students and 32 ophthalmological residents were randomized to either virtual reality (VR) training, or control. Initially and after 3 weeks each participant performed three capsulorhexis tasks in a porcine wet-lab. In between, participants from the VR training groups completed two training trials on the EYESi surgical simulator (VRmagic, Mannheim, Germany). VR training consisted of basic skill tasks and capsulorhexis tasks of increasing difficulty, and preset performance goals had to be reached for each task. All wet-lab procedures (n = 372) were recorded on DVD, and assessed by a masked observer. Each wet-lab capsulorhexis was evaluated with regard to five criteria (circularity, size, centering, time, tissue protection) using a predefined scoring system with a maximum overall score of 10 points (2 per criterion). The primary outcome measure was the intra-individual difference in the average overall performance score between the first and second wet-lab capsulorhexis procedures. Ten operation videos were additionally assessed by three further investigators to determine interobserver agreement. RESULTS: Inter-observer agreement regarding the overall performance score was high (ICC = 0.91). Compared to control groups, VR-trained students and residents showed significant improvement in their median wet-lab capsulorhexis overall performance score compared to controls (+3.67 vs +0.33 points, P = 0.001 and +3.33 vs +/-0.00 points, P < 0.0001). The capsulorhexis performance of VR-trained students and residents was also more consistent with a lower standard deviation of scores compared to controls (SD 1.3 vs 2.1 and 1.2 vs 1.7 points respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Structured capsulorhexis training on the EYESi to reach specific target criteria significantly improved wet-lab capsulorhexis performance.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To investigate, whether capsulorhexis training on the EYESi surgical simulator improves wet-lab operating performance of surgical novices. METHODS: Randomized, masked experimental study. Thirty-one medical students and 32 ophthalmological residents were randomized to either virtual reality (VR) training, or control. Initially and after 3 weeks each participant performed three capsulorhexis tasks in a porcine wet-lab. In between, participants from the VR training groups completed two training trials on the EYESi surgical simulator (VRmagic, Mannheim, Germany). VR training consisted of basic skill tasks and capsulorhexis tasks of increasing difficulty, and preset performance goals had to be reached for each task. All wet-lab procedures (n = 372) were recorded on DVD, and assessed by a masked observer. Each wet-lab capsulorhexis was evaluated with regard to five criteria (circularity, size, centering, time, tissue protection) using a predefined scoring system with a maximum overall score of 10 points (2 per criterion). The primary outcome measure was the intra-individual difference in the average overall performance score between the first and second wet-lab capsulorhexis procedures. Ten operation videos were additionally assessed by three further investigators to determine interobserver agreement. RESULTS: Inter-observer agreement regarding the overall performance score was high (ICC = 0.91). Compared to control groups, VR-trained students and residents showed significant improvement in their median wet-lab capsulorhexis overall performance score compared to controls (+3.67 vs +0.33 points, P = 0.001 and +3.33 vs +/-0.00 points, P < 0.0001). The capsulorhexis performance of VR-trained students and residents was also more consistent with a lower standard deviation of scores compared to controls (SD 1.3 vs 2.1 and 1.2 vs 1.7 points respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Structured capsulorhexis training on the EYESi to reach specific target criteria significantly improved wet-lab capsulorhexis performance.
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Roger Webster; Joseph Sassani; Rod Shenk; Matt Harris; Jesse Gerber; Aaron Benson; John Blumenstock; Chad Billman; Randy Haluck Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2005
Authors: Juliana V Rossi; Dinesh Verma; Gildo Y Fujii; Rohit R Lakhanpal; Sue Lynn Wu; Mark S Humayun; Eugene De Juan Journal: Retina Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: A Simmenroth-Nayda; Y Görlich; M Wagner; M Müther; C Lohse; L Utte; S Leiterholt; H Hoerauf; N Feltgen Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: Morten la Cour; Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen; Mark Alberti; Lars Konge Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Patrick C Staropoli; Ninel Z Gregori; Anna K Junk; Anat Galor; Raquel Goldhardt; Brian E Goldhagen; Wei Shi; William Feuer Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 1.929