Kerr Brogan1, Basu Dawar2, David Lockington2, Kanna Ramaesh2. 1. Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland. kerrbrogan@hotmail.co.uk. 2. Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To objectively measure head drift during cataract surgery, and subjectively simulate eye movements and assess impact on surgical technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve consecutively recorded routine cataract operations in the Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, were reviewed. The speculum was used as a fixed point and correlated with a superimposed virtual ruler to measure maximum head drift in each direction throughout the operations. To simulate intraoperative eye movement, we attached string to the cataract surgical simulator (Eyesi) eye and manually induced abduction and adduction. A calibrated scale secured to the Eyesi head ensured 5 mm eye movements were consistently created. Ophthalmology trainees performed the continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) exercise without and with sequential eye movements. Movements were induced every three seconds. Scores were compared using a paired Student's T-test. RESULTS: Mean head drift in the surgical recordings was 3.1 mm medially (range 2-7 mm), 2.9 mm laterally (range 2-4 mm), 2.6 mm superiorly (range 1-5 mm), and 1.9 mm inferiorly (range 1-4 mm). In 11 of 12 cases, the operating microscope had to be adjusted for head drift. Six junior trainees completed the CCC module on the Eyesi without then with eye movements. After introducing eye movements the mean Eyesi score reduced from 92.7 to 76.9 (P = 0.014), 'roundness of rhexis' score reduced from 89.4 to 57.5 (P = 0.020), and trainees operated 17 s faster (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: This study objectively demonstrates the under-reported clinical scenario of head drift during cataract surgery. By manipulating the Eyesi we have shown that eye movements reduce the quality of cataract surgery.
PURPOSE: To objectively measure head drift during cataract surgery, and subjectively simulate eye movements and assess impact on surgical technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve consecutively recorded routine cataract operations in the Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, were reviewed. The speculum was used as a fixed point and correlated with a superimposed virtual ruler to measure maximum head drift in each direction throughout the operations. To simulate intraoperative eye movement, we attached string to the cataract surgical simulator (Eyesi) eye and manually induced abduction and adduction. A calibrated scale secured to the Eyesi head ensured 5 mm eye movements were consistently created. Ophthalmology trainees performed the continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) exercise without and with sequential eye movements. Movements were induced every three seconds. Scores were compared using a paired Student's T-test. RESULTS: Mean head drift in the surgical recordings was 3.1 mm medially (range 2-7 mm), 2.9 mm laterally (range 2-4 mm), 2.6 mm superiorly (range 1-5 mm), and 1.9 mm inferiorly (range 1-4 mm). In 11 of 12 cases, the operating microscope had to be adjusted for head drift. Six junior trainees completed the CCC module on the Eyesi without then with eye movements. After introducing eye movements the mean Eyesi score reduced from 92.7 to 76.9 (P = 0.014), 'roundness of rhexis' score reduced from 89.4 to 57.5 (P = 0.020), and trainees operated 17 s faster (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: This study objectively demonstrates the under-reported clinical scenario of head drift during cataract surgery. By manipulating the Eyesi we have shown that eye movements reduce the quality of cataract surgery.
Authors: Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen; Jens Folke Kiilgaard; Hadi Kjaerbo; Morten la Cour; Lars Konge Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Murat Aslankurt; Lokman Aslan; Ahmet M Başkan; Adnan Aksoy; Emin Silay; Hüseyin Yıldız Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: N Narendran; P Jaycock; R L Johnston; H Taylor; M Adams; D M Tole; R H Asaria; P Galloway; J M Sparrow Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Ali Ebrahimi; Muller Urias; Niravkumar Patel; Changyan He; Russell H Taylor; Peter Gehlbach; Iulian Iordachita Journal: ROMAN Date: 2020-01-13