PURPOSE: To investigate the validity of six vitreoretinal modules on the Eyesi Surgical Simulator. METHODS: Fifteen residents with no vitreoretinal experience and six trained vitreoretinal surgeons (>100 procedures per year) were included in the study. Four modules were selected in agreement with an experienced surgeon: the navigation (Nav), forceps (For), vitrector (Vit) and epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling modules. The first level of the basic training modules (Nav1 and For1) and the first two levels of the more procedural modules (Vit1, Vit2, ERM1 and ERM2) were completed twice by both groups in the above order. The performance parameters for each task were calculated by the simulator software. The results from both iterations were recorded for analysis. RESULTS: Experienced vitreoretinal surgeons outperformed residents with regard to the overall score on the Nav1 (p = 0.01), For1 (p < 0.01), ERM1 (p = 0.02) and ERM2 (p = 0.04) modules. No differences in overall score were found between the two groups on the Vit1 (p = 0.17) and Vit2 modules (p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Validity for the simulator metrics was found on four vitreoretinal modules not previously investigated, with regard to construct validity, content and the response process. These exercises could be included in a future competency-based training programme that could potentially be applied in the standard ophthalmological curriculum.
PURPOSE: To investigate the validity of six vitreoretinal modules on the Eyesi Surgical Simulator. METHODS: Fifteen residents with no vitreoretinal experience and six trained vitreoretinal surgeons (>100 procedures per year) were included in the study. Four modules were selected in agreement with an experienced surgeon: the navigation (Nav), forceps (For), vitrector (Vit) and epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling modules. The first level of the basic training modules (Nav1 and For1) and the first two levels of the more procedural modules (Vit1, Vit2, ERM1 and ERM2) were completed twice by both groups in the above order. The performance parameters for each task were calculated by the simulator software. The results from both iterations were recorded for analysis. RESULTS: Experienced vitreoretinal surgeons outperformed residents with regard to the overall score on the Nav1 (p = 0.01), For1 (p < 0.01), ERM1 (p = 0.02) and ERM2 (p = 0.04) modules. No differences in overall score were found between the two groups on the Vit1 (p = 0.17) and Vit2 modules (p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Validity for the simulator metrics was found on four vitreoretinal modules not previously investigated, with regard to construct validity, content and the response process. These exercises could be included in a future competency-based training programme that could potentially be applied in the standard ophthalmological curriculum.
Authors: Mina Iskander; Titilola Ogunsola; Rithambara Ramachandran; Richard McGowan; Lama A Al-Aswad Journal: Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) Date: 2021 May-Jun 01