Digitally assisted three-dimensional surgery - Beyond vitreous

Assessing the surgical competency of novice surgeons by using a three-dimensional heads-up display microscope

PURPOSE

To evaluate the surgical performance of novice surgeons operating on a three-dimensional (3D) heads-up display system compared to those using a traditional microscope (TM).

METHODS

Prospective study design in a private practice setting. Twenty novice surgeons with similar experiences in cataract surgery were selected. Each surgeon performed 20 phacoemulsification cataract surgeries: 10 surgeries on the 3D heads-up display microscope, and 10 surgeries using a TM system. Data were collected from a total of 400 patients operated on by 20 surgeons. Outcome measures were recorded and graded according to the International Council of Ophthalmology's Ophthalmology Surgical Competency Assessment Rubric-Phacoemulsification system. The main outcome measure was mean surgical competency scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 400 data points were equally distributed between TM (200) and 3D (200) surgeries. The mean surgical competency scores were 60.19 (11.41) for TM surgeries and 62.99 (11.11) for 3D surgeries. 3D surgeries had significantly higher surgical competency scores than TM surgeries ( P = 0.013). The mean surgical duration for TM and 3D surgeries was 35.98 (6.02) min and 34.31 (7.12) min, respectively. 3D surgeries took significantly less time than TM surgeries ( P = 0.012). The overall mean best corrected visual acuity in the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution units was 0.27 (0.42); in TM and 3D surgeries, it was 0.28 (0.43) units and 0.26 (0.41) units, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The 3D heads-up display system enhances stereopsis in cataract surgery, making it a valuable training tool for novice surgeons in phacoemulsification procedures.

Evolution of operating microscopes and development of 3D visualization systems for intraocular surgery

The recent development of high-resolution, heads-up, 3D visualization microscopy systems has provided new technical and visualization options for ophthalmic surgeons. In this review, we explore the evolution of microscope technologies, the science behind modern 3D visualization microscopy systems, and the practical benefits (as well as disadvantages) that these systems provide over conventional microscopes for intraocular surgical practice. Overall, modern 3D visualization systems reduce the requirements for artificial illumination and provide enhanced visualization and resolution of ocular structures, improving ergonomics, and facilitating a superior educational experience. Even when considering their disadvantages, such as those related to technical feasibility, 3D visualization systems have an overall positive benefit/risk ratio. It is hoped these systems will be adopted into routine clinical practice, pending further clinical evidence on the benefits they may provide on clinical outcomes.

Chandelier-Assisted Scleral Buckling: A Literature Review

The treatment of retinal detachment (RD) has seen numerous advancements in the last decades. Scleral buckling (SB) is a surgical procedure introduced in the 1950s that has seen a drastic reduction with the advent of vitrectomy. However, due to the new surgical visualization systems, SB has evolved and continues to be an extremely useful procedure in certain conditions. The presence of different case reports or interventional studies with comparable outcomes, as well as the lack of recent studies with direct comparison, may result in an underestimation of its potential nowadays. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on chandelier-assisted scleral bucking (CSB), with an overview of the surgical evolution, outcomes, advantages, and complications.

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.

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.

Scleral Buckling: A Look at the Past, Present and Future in View of Recent Findings on the Importance of Photoreceptor Re-Alignment Following Retinal Re-Attachment

Scleral buckling (SB) remains an important technique to master for those interested in treating rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Several ways to repair RRD include pneumatic retinopexy (PR), pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), SB or a combination of these. There is a growing worldwide trend that favors PPV as the preferred method for retinal reattachment of primary uncomplicated RRD. Reimbursement issues, operating room access, and technological advances in PPV that improve retinal visualization and less exposure to SB during fellowship training may explain this trend. As the number of SB cases decreases over time, there is a risk that SB becomes a dying art and surgeons in training may not be trained in SB. SB is preferred in eyes with no posterior vitreous detachment and retinal dialysis. SB with minimal gas vitrectomy may be indicated for eyes with inferior pathology. Non-contact wide-angled visualization with chandelier assisted SB may be well suited for teaching new generations of aspiring vitreoretinal surgeons. Its functional and anatomic results compare favorably with conventional SB for primary uncomplicated primary RRD. The main advantage of this technique is the improved visualization even through small pupils. Better visualization ensures treatment of all breaks while avoiding complications during drainage of subretinal fluid and a safer placement of intrascleral sutures for scleral fixation of the buckling element. Recordings of the procedure are easily performed, allowing the surgeons involved to review the case and learn from it. The main disadvantage is the cost involved with the chandelier and the need to have a microscope or a 3D system with a wide angle viewing system. Photoreceptor re-alignment following retinal re-attachment is an important determinant of the post-operative functional outcomes. Different methods of retinal re-attachment apparently result in different degrees of photoreceptor re-alignment. SB may hold an advantage over PPV in this regard.