Initial experience with three-dimensional heads-up display system for cataract surgery - A comparative study

Comparison of posterior capsule rupture rates during phacoemulsification using 3D heads-up visualization system and traditional microscopes

PURPOSE

To compare the posterior capsule rupture (PCR) rates of cataract surgery using a traditional ophthalmic surgical microscope (OSM) and a 3D heads-up visualization system (HUVS).

SETTING

Single tertiary referral center.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

METHODS

This study included 10 101 eyes that underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Surgeries were performed using either 3D HUVS (1964 eyes, performed by 2 surgeons, HUVS group) or traditional OSM (8137 eyes, performed by 6 surgeons, OSM group) from February 2018 to June 2022. Data were collected based on the diagnosis-related group system, and the rate of PCR requiring vitrectomy and the surgical time were evaluated.

RESULTS

The PCR rates were not significantly different between the OSM (n = 63; 0.7%) and HUVS (n = 19; 0.9%, P = .392) groups. The mean surgical time was significantly longer in the HUVS group (14.7 ± 10.6 minutes) than in the OSM group (12.9 ± 9.9 minutes, P < .001). In the 3D HUVS group, there were no PCR cases among the initial 100 patients. In both groups, no significant difference was observed in the PCR rates over time. Although the difference was not statistically significant, the PCR rate decreased over time in the HUVS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that 3D HUVS-based cataract surgery performed by experienced cataract surgeons had a PCR rate similar to that of traditional OSM-based surgery during the 4-year study period. Although the surgical time was slightly longer with 3D HUVS, cataract surgery using 3D HUVS can be performed safely by experienced surgeons.

3D visualization system and standard operating microscope for ease of visualization and surgeon comfort during phacoemulsification surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the ease of visualization and comfort of the surgeon during phacoemulsification surgery using NGENUITY® 3D (NG) visualization system and standard operating microscope (SOM).

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, single-blind, single-center study, patients undergoing phacoemulsification surgery by one of the five surgeons were randomly assigned to two groups based on the visualization modality-NG and SOM. Ease of visualization and comfort of the surgeon was assessed using a 27-parameter in-house Surgeon Comfort Score questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 224 phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantations were performed in senile immature cataract (SIMC, n = 174) and mature cataract patients (MC, n = 50). Surgeon's ease of visualization (4.92-5.00) and hand-eye coordination score (4.97-5.00) were comparable between the NG- and SOM-groups. Postoperative neck discomfort was lower in both the groups, with a relatively lower discomfort in the NG-group (score: 1.04 vs 1.56). The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r) between illumination of the operation theatre room and the surgical field revealed a weak negative correlation for most of the patients in the NG-group, and a positive correlation for patients in the SOM-group. No correlation was obtained between brightness of the surgical field and comfort with the surgical field brightness.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar ease of visualization was experienced by the surgeons using NG- and SOM-system. Neck discomfort postsurgery was numerically lower in the NG-group, although not significant. Additionally, the NG-system permitted the safe performance of phacoemulsification using a lower surgical field illumination.

Heads-Up Three-Dimensional Viewing Systems in Vitreoretinal Surgery: An Updated Perspective

Three-Dimensional (3D) heads-up visualization systems have significantly advanced vitreoretinal surgery, providing enhanced detail and improved ergonomics. This review discusses the application of 3D systems in vitreoretinal surgery, their use in various procedures, their combination with other imaging modalities, and the role of this technology in medical education and telementoring. Furthermore, the review highlights the benefits of 3D systems, such as improved ergonomics, reduced phototoxicity, enhanced depth of field, and the use of color filters. Potential challenges, including the learning curve and additional costs, are also addressed. The review concludes by exploring promising future applications, including teleophthalmology for remote assistance and specialist availability expansion, virtual reality integration for global clinical education, and the combination of remotely robotic-guided surgery with artificial intelligence for precise, efficient surgical procedures. This comprehensive review offers insights into the current state and future potential of 3D heads-up visualization systems in vitreoretinal surgery, underscoring the transformative impact of this technology on ophthalmology.

Magnification and Refocusing Comparison in Cataract Surgery Using a Heads-Up Three-Dimensional Visualization System versus Conventional Binocular Microscopy

Purpose

To compare magnification and refocusing during phacoemulsification with the NGENUITY® 3-D Visualization System (3-D) versus the conventional microscope (CM) OPMI LUMERA 700.

Setting

This study was performed in the Department of Anterior Segment of the Fundación Hospital Nuestra Señora de la Luz.

Design

Prospective, randomized, cross-sectional, multi-surgeon, and comparative study.

Methods

This study enrolled 100 patients (eyes) scheduled for phacoemulsification to measure the number of times changes in focusing and magnification were needed during cataract surgery.

Results

Our study included 100 patients. From the endpoints evaluated, "zoom-in" showed statistically significant differences for all of the four predefined cataract surgery steps (means: Step 1, 0.38 (CM) vs 0.08 (3-D); Step 2, 0.36 (CM) vs 0.06 (3-D); Step 3, 0.54 (CM) vs 0.22 (3-D); Step 4, 0.56 (CM) vs 0.24 (3-D); all comparisons, p <0.05). In Step 4, there was a statistically significant increased use of "focus-out" for the 3-D system (mean 0.16 (CM) vs 0.58 (3-D); p <0.05). "Focus-in" and "zoom-out" showed no group differences for all steps. The duration of surgery with the 3-D system was longer at each step and overall. The percentage of light intensity did not show a statistically significant difference between both systems, with a mean of 99.45 for CM vs 98.43% for the heads-up system.

Conclusion

The heads-up 3-D system is a safe option that offers excellent magnification for anterior segment visualization. The surgical time is longer, but adjusting settings like light intensity and brightness may facilitate some surgical steps early in the learning curve.

Comparison of a 3D heads-up display system with a conventional surgical microscopy for minimally invasive glaucoma surgery on an artificial eye model

PURPOSE

To survey ophthalmic surgeons' opinions comparing a novel three-dimensional (3D) heads-up display system with a conventional surgical microscopy for minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) on an artificial eye model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one ophthalmologists at the 2021 Canadian Ophthalmological Society Annual Meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia, underwent a 90-minute skills-transfer course on MIGS. Using an artificial eye model (SimulEYE iTrack Model; InsEYE LLC, Westlake Village, Calif.), participants engaged in hands-on practice of MIGS via both a 3D heads-up display system (3D HUDS) (Zeiss Artevo 800; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) and a conventional surgical microscope. Following completion, participants and instructors answered a 16-question survey comparing the 2 systems (3D HUDS vs conventional surgical microscope). Survey responses were recorded on a 9-point double-headed Likert scale ranging from strongly favour 3D HUDS (1) to strongly favour conventional surgical microscopy (9). Mann-Whitney U nonparametric analysis was used to compare instructor versus participants and experts versus nonexperts.

RESULTS

Survey ratings favoured the 3D HUDS over the conventional surgical microscopy, with respondent ratings for all survey questions ranging from a response of 1 (strongly favour 3D HUDS) to 5 (equal). Mann-Whitney U statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between instructor versus participant as well as between expert versus nonexpert. Most ratings for the 3D HUDS were received for ergonomic setup of the surgical modality, depth of field (or) field of view, and usefulness in training residents for MIGS. Equal ratings for the 3D HUDS and conventional surgical microscope were received for system malfunctions and lag during surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3D HUDS was favoured over conventional microscopy for the performance of simulated MIGS by ophthalmologists with varying levels of experience. The survey results suggest that the 3D HUDS in an artificial eye model is useful for teaching minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, particularly with the advent of competency-based ophthalmology education programs.

Comparing microscope light-associated glare and comfort between heads-up 3D digital and conventional microscopes in cataract surgery: a randomised, multicentre, single-blind, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare subjective levels of comfort and visual experiences related to microscope light in patients undergoing their first cataract surgery with topical anaesthesia using a digital microscope (the NGENUITY three-dimensional (3D) visualisation system) or a conventional microscope.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective, randomised, single-blinded, parallel-group, multicentre, interventional study. Patients (n=128) were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: the experimental group (n=63) had surgery using the digital microscope and the control group (n=65) had surgery with a conventional microscope. The primary outcome was patients' subjective experience of glare from the microscope light during surgery on a numerical scale from 0 to 10. Key secondary outcomes were patients' subjective levels of comfort and visual experiences related to the microscope light.

RESULTS

The experimental group reported significantly lower levels of glare; median levels were 1.0 (0.0-4.0) for the experimental group vs 3.0 (0.0-6.0) for the control group (p=0.027). They also reported higher levels of comfort; median ratings were 8.0 (6.5-10.0) in the experimental group and 7.0 (5.0-9.0) in controls (p=0.026). There were no group differences in ratings of subjective pain or visual disturbances. Median microscope light intensity was lower in the experimental group than controls; 3425.0 (2296.0-4300.0) Lux vs 24 279.0 (16 000.0-26 500.0) Lux (p<0.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional microscopes, the NGENUITY 3D visualisation system allows surgeons to operate with lower levels of light exposure, resulting in significantly less glare and improved comfort in patients undergoing cataract surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05085314.

Three-Dimensional Visualization System for Vitreoretinal Surgery: Results from a Monocentric Experience and Comparison with Conventional Surgery

PURPOSE

To describe the experience of our centre (Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy) in using a heads-up three-dimensional (3D) surgical viewing system in vitreoretinal surgery, making a comparison with the conventional microscope surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data taken from 240 patients (240 eyes) with surgical macular diseases (macular hole and epiretinal membrane), retinal detachment or vitreous hemorrhage who underwent vitreoretinal surgeries, by means of the NGENUITY 3D Visualization System (Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA), in comparison with 210 patients (210 eyes) who underwent vitreoretinal surgeries performed using a conventional microscope. All surgeries were performed with standardized procedures by the same surgeons. We analyzed data over a follow-up period of 6 months, comparing the surgical outcomes (best-corrected visual acuity, anatomical success rate and postoperative complication rate) between the two groups.

RESULTS

the 3D group included 74 patients with retinal detachment, 78 with epiretinal membrane, 64 with macular hole and 24 with vitreous hemorrhage. There were no significant differences in the demographic and clinical characteristics between the 3D group and the conventional group. We found no significant differences in outcome measures at three and six months follow-up between the two groups (p-value ≥ 0.05 for all comparisons). Surgery durations were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, a heads-up 3D surgical viewing system provided comparable functional and anatomical outcomes in comparison with conventional microscope surgery, proving to be a valuable tool for vitreoretinal surgery in the treatment of different retinal diseases.

Impact of Heads-Up Display Use on Ophthalmologist Productivity, Wellness, and Musculoskeletal Symptoms: A Survey Study

Purpose

To explore how ophthalmologist productivity, wellness, and musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are affected by heads-up display (HUD) use.

Methods

A digital survey was emailed to the United States ophthalmologists. Questions covered topics including MSK health, surgical output, work hours, wellness hours, and factors related to HUD use.

Results

One hundred and forty-four ophthalmologists responded, and 99 completed all eligible questions. HUDs were utilized by 33 respondents, 29 of whom submitted complete surveys. HUD users worked 353 more hours annually (P = 0.01) and performed 673 more cases (P = 0.07) than nonusers. MSK symptom presence (P = 0.79), severity (P = 0.80), and frequency (P = 0.86) were independent of use. Over half (n = 16/29) of users identified symptomatic improvement attributable to the device, mostly in the cervical and lumbar regions. Mean job stress was moderate-severe for both users and nonusers (P = 0.10), and there was no significant difference in wellness hours (P = 0.44). Retina specialists (P = 0.02) and males (P = 0.03) were more likely to have operated with the technology. Nearly half of heads-up surgeons (n = 12/29) had obtained new equipment to target MSK symptoms, versus 1.4% of nonusers (n = 1/70; P = 0.0009). Most of those who operated with HUDs would recommend them to others (69.0%, n = 20/29), but 44.8% (n = 13/29) indicated ergonomic challenges. Primary concerns included awkward viewing angles, setup difficulties, and a lack of access.

Conclusions

HUD surgeons reported greater work output versus nonusers without significant compromises in wellness or MSK health. User feedback suggests that the technology may lessen neck and low back pains, but barriers including cost and system inconveniences may impede adoption.

Three-Dimensional Heads-up Display in Cataract Surgery: A Review

Intraocular visualization in cataract surgery is currently achieved using the ophthalmic surgical microscope (OSM). Three-dimensional (3D) heads-up display is a burgeoning intraocular visualization technique for cataract surgery, which projects the surgical view to a 3D monitor. A number of theoretical advantages of this system over the OSM have been proposed. 3D visualization is reported to provide improved depth perception and the heads-up display promotes a more ergonomic surgical position while providing an enhanced view for the entire surgical team. The modern OSMs, however, already allow for safe and efficient cataract surgery, and 3D heads-up display visualization is limited by a steep learning curve. We critically review the literature around 3D heads-up display cataract surgery and compare its safety profile to traditional visualization techniques.

Three-Dimensional Heads-Up vs. Standard Operating Microscope for Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The surgical time duration, the postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and the incidence rate of intraoperative complications, alongside the vision and posturing parameters, were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the three-dimensional (3D) heads-up visualization system (HUVS) and standard operating microscope (SOM) in cataract surgery. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus on 26 June 2022. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to present postoperative BCVA and the mean surgical time duration, whereas the risk ratio (RR) was used to present the incidence rate of intraoperative complications. Publication bias was evaluated with Egger’s test. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool for randomized clinical trials, the methodological index for non-randomized, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk of bias. The research has been registered with the PROSPERO database (identifier, CRD42022339186). Results: In the meta-analysis of five studies with 1021 participants, the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) of the postoperative BCVA showed no significant difference between patients who underwent HUVS versus SOM cataract surgery (WMD = −0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.01 −0.02). In the meta-analysis of nine studies with 5505 participants, the pooled WMD of mean surgical time duration revealed no significant difference between patients who underwent HUVS versus SOM cataract surgery (WMD = 0.17, 95% CI: −0.43–0.76). In the meta-analysis of nine studies with 8609 participants, the pooled risk RR associated with intraoperative complications was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00–1.01). Conclusions: 3D HUVS and SOM provide comparable surgical time duration, postoperative BCVA, and incidence rate of intraoperative complications.