Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Academic Ophthalmology 2023; 15(01): e46-e50
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1761276
Research Article

Evaluation of Two-Dimensional (2D) versus Three-Dimensional (3D) Video Tutorials in Cataract Surgery for New Trainees

Yuxi Zheng
1   Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Duke Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina
,
Saif Hamdan
2   Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University and Hospitals, Department of Ophthalmology, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Jonathan Siktberg
3   Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Jonathan Barnett 
4   Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Sylvia L. Groth
4   Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Nathan Podoll
4   Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Laura Wayman
4   Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Jennifer L. Lindsey 
4   Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Nashville, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Microscopic ophthalmic surgery requires an understanding of three-dimensional (3D) spaces within the eye. Recently, there has been an increase in 3D video training tools in health care. Studies have evaluated the efficacy of 3D tutorials in general surgery, but little has been published within ophthalmology. We present a randomized study evaluating differences in surgically naïve trainees after watching either a 2D or 3D phacoemulsification tutorial.

Design This was a double-blind, randomized study. A group of third and fourth year medical students at our institution were randomized with stratified randomization based on prior surgical courses to control for differences in baseline surgical skill. The two study arms were watching 2D or 3D instructional videos on phacoemulsification (Richard Mackool).

Methods Participants received a preliminary survey and participated in an hour-long microscopic surgery session. During the session, participants performed tasks evaluating baseline microscopic spatial awareness and surgical skill. The students were then instructed to watch either a 2D or 3D video on phacoemulsification based on their randomized study arm. During the postintervention session, participants performed the biplanar incision and capsulorhexis steps of cataract surgery discussed in the video on model eyes. Students were evaluated on speed and overall capsulorhexis quality.

Results Thirty-one students qualified for the study and completed the microscopic surgery session. Students in both groups had similar baseline speed and quality of preintervention microscopic tasks (p > 0.05 for all tasks). Postintervention, students randomized to the 3D video performed significantly faster than the 2D group for biplanar incision (11.1 ± 5.5 s vs. 20.7 ± 10.5 s, p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences found between the groups in capsulorhexis timing (p = 0.12) or quality score (p = 0.60).

Conclusions 3D video surgical training tutorials may improve speed of certain steps of cataract surgery for surgically naïve ophthalmology trainees. Given the limited sample size of this study, further investigation of their effectiveness is warranted.

Keywords

microsurgery - 3D - virtual reality - cataract surgery - residency program - education - teaching


Publication History

Received: 17 August 2022

Accepted: 14 December 2022

Article published online:
03 February 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Mills RP, Mannis MJ. American Board of Ophthalmology Program Directors' Task Force on Competencies. Report of the American Board of Ophthalmology task force on the competencies. Ophthalmology 2004; 111 (07) 1267-1268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Smith RJ, McCannel CA, Gordon LK. et al. Evaluating teaching methods of cataract surgery: validation of an evaluation tool for assessing surgical technique of capsulorhexis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38 (05) 799-806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Henderson BA, Ali R. Teaching and assessing competence in cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2007; 18 (01) 27-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Thomsen AS, Subhi Y, Kiilgaard JF, la Cour M, Konge L. Update on simulation-based surgical training and assessment in ophthalmology: a systematic review. Ophthalmology 2015; 122 (06) 1111.e1-1130.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pantanelli SM, Papachristou G, Callahan C, Chen M, Khalifa Y. Wet lab-based cataract surgery training curriculum for the PGY 2/PGY 3 ophthalmology resident. MedEdPORTAL 2018; 14: 10782-10782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bhogal MM, Angunawela RI, Little BC. Use of low-cost video recording device in reflective practice in cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36 (04) 542-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nayer ZH, Murdock B, Dharia IP, Belyea DA. Predictive and construct validity of virtual reality cataract surgery simulators. J Cataract Refract Surg 2020; 46 (06) 907-912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chhaya N, Helmy O, Piri N, Palacio A, Schaal S. Comparison Of 2D and 3D video displays for teaching vitreoretinal surgery. Retina 2018; 38 (08) 1556-1561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rizzo S, Abbruzzese G, Savastano A. et al. 3D surgical viewing system in ophthalmology: perceptions of the surgical team. Retina 2018; 38 (04) 857-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Prinz A, Bolz M, Findl O. Advantage of three dimensional animated teaching over traditional surgical videos for teaching ophthalmic surgery: a randomised study. Br J Ophthalmol 2005; 89 (11) 1495-1499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Broglio K. Randomization in clinical trials: permuted blocks and stratification. JAMA 2018; 319 (21) 2223-2224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mackool RJ. Phaco fundamentals. Published 2019. Accessed March 1, 2020 at: http://mackoolonlinefundamentalscme.com/fundamentals-episode-1-phaco-fundamentals/
    PubMed
  • 13 Staropoli PC, Gregori NZ, Junk AK. et al. Surgical simulation training reduces intraoperative cataract surgery complications among residents. Simul Healthc 2018; 13 (01) 11-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Saleh GM, Lamparter J, Sullivan PM. et al. The international forum of ophthalmic simulation: developing a virtual reality training curriculum for ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol 2013; 97 (06) 789-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 CINEMIZER OLED VIDEO GLASSES. Accessed October 26, 2022 at: https://www.cinemizerusa.com/products/cinemizer-oled-video-glasses
    PubMed
  • 16 Mahr MA. The Eyesi Ophthalmic Surgical Simulator. Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today. Accessed October 26, 2022 at: https://crstoday.com/articles/2008-may/crst0508_20-php/
    PubMed
  • 17 Young BK, Greenberg PB. Is virtual reality training for resident cataract surgeons cost effective?. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2013; 251 (09) 2295-2296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kaur S, Shirodkar A-L, Nanavaty MA, Austin M. Cost-effective and adaptable cataract surgery simulation with basic technology. Eye (Lond) 2022; 36 (07) 1384-1389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar