Madeleine Selvander1, Peter Asman. 1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö: Ophthalmology, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden. madeleine.selvander@skane.se
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate construct validity for modules hydromaneuvers and phaco on the Eyesi surgical simulator. METHODS: Seven cataract surgeons and 17 medical students performed capsulorhexis, hydromaneuvers, phaco, navigation, forceps, cracking and chopping modules in a standardized manner. Three trials were performed on each module (two on phaco) in the above order. Performance parameters as calculated by the simulator for each trial were saved. Video recordings of the second trial of the modules capsulorhexis, hydromaneuvers and phaco were evaluated with the modified Objective Structured Assessment of Surgical Skill (OSATS) and Objective Structured Assessment of Cataract Surgical Skill (OSACSS) tools. RESULTS: Cataract surgeons outperformed medical students with regard to overall score on capsulorhexis (p < 0.001, p = 0.035, p = 0.010 for the tree iterations, respectively), navigation (p = 0.024, p = 0.307, p = 0.007), forceps (p = 0.017, p = 0.03, p = 0.028). Less obvious differences in overall score were found for modules cracking and chopping (p = 0.266, p = 0.022, p = 0.324) and phaco (p = 0.011, p = 0.081 for the two iterations, respectively). No differences in overall score were found on hydromaneuvers (p = 0.588, p = 0.503, p = 0.773), but surgeons received better scores from the evaluations of the modified OSATS (p = 0.001) and OSACSS (capsulorhexis, p = 0.003; hydromaneuvers, p = 0.017; phaco, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Construct validity was found on several modules previously not investigated (phaco, hydromaneuvers, cracking and chopping, navigation), and our results confirm previously demonstrated construct validity for capsulorhexis and forceps modules. Interestingly, validation of the hydromaneuvers module required OSACSS video evaluation tool. A further development of the scoring system in the simulator for the hydromaneuvers module would be advantageous and make training and evaluation of progress more accessible and immediate.
PURPOSE: To investigate construct validity for modules hydromaneuvers and phaco on the Eyesi surgical simulator. METHODS: Seven cataract surgeons and 17 medical students performed capsulorhexis, hydromaneuvers, phaco, navigation, forceps, cracking and chopping modules in a standardized manner. Three trials were performed on each module (two on phaco) in the above order. Performance parameters as calculated by the simulator for each trial were saved. Video recordings of the second trial of the modules capsulorhexis, hydromaneuvers and phaco were evaluated with the modified Objective Structured Assessment of Surgical Skill (OSATS) and Objective Structured Assessment of Cataract Surgical Skill (OSACSS) tools. RESULTS:Cataract surgeons outperformed medical students with regard to overall score on capsulorhexis (p < 0.001, p = 0.035, p = 0.010 for the tree iterations, respectively), navigation (p = 0.024, p = 0.307, p = 0.007), forceps (p = 0.017, p = 0.03, p = 0.028). Less obvious differences in overall score were found for modules cracking and chopping (p = 0.266, p = 0.022, p = 0.324) and phaco (p = 0.011, p = 0.081 for the two iterations, respectively). No differences in overall score were found on hydromaneuvers (p = 0.588, p = 0.503, p = 0.773), but surgeons received better scores from the evaluations of the modified OSATS (p = 0.001) and OSACSS (capsulorhexis, p = 0.003; hydromaneuvers, p = 0.017; phaco, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Construct validity was found on several modules previously not investigated (phaco, hydromaneuvers, cracking and chopping, navigation), and our results confirm previously demonstrated construct validity for capsulorhexis and forceps modules. Interestingly, validation of the hydromaneuvers module required OSACSS video evaluation tool. A further development of the scoring system in the simulator for the hydromaneuvers module would be advantageous and make training and evaluation of progress more accessible and immediate.
Authors: Marina Roizenblatt; Vitor Dias Gomes Barrios Marin; Alex Treiger Grupenmacher; Felipe Muralha; Jean Faber; Kim Jiramongkolchai; Peter Louis Gehlbach; Michel Eid Farah; Rubens Belfort; Mauricio Maia Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: G M Saleh; K Theodoraki; S Gillan; P Sullivan; F O'Sullivan; B Hussain; C Bunce; I Athanasiadis Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Daniel Shu Wei Ting; Shaun Sebastian Khung Peng Sim; Christine Wen Leng Yau; Mohamad Rosman; Ai Tee Aw; Ian Yew San Yeo Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 1.779
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