ABSTRACT
Background: An exoscope heralds a new era of optics in surgery. However, there is limited quantitative evidence describing and comparing the learning curve. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the learning curve, plateau, and rate of novice surgeons using an Olympus ORBEYE exoscope compared to an operating microscope (Carl Zeiss OPMI PENTERO or KINEVO 900). Methods: A preclinical, randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial assessed the performance of seventeen novice and seven expert surgeons completing the microsurgical grape dissection task "Star's the limit." A standardized star was drawn on a grape using a stencil with a 5â mm edge length. Participants cut the star and peeled the star-shaped skin off the grape with microscissors and forceps while minimizing damage to the grape flesh. Participants repeated the task 20 times consecutively for each optical device. Learning was assessed using model functions such as the Weibull function, and the cognitive workload was assessed with the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Results: Seventeen novice (male:female 12:5; median years of training 0.4 [0-2.8 years]) and six expert (male:female 4:2; median years of training 10 [8.9-24 years]) surgeons were recruited. "Star's the limit" was validated using a performance score that gave a threshold of expert performance of 70 (0-100). The learning rate (ORBEYE -0.94 ± 0.37; microscope -1.30 ± 0.46) and learning plateau (ORBEYE 64.89 ± 8.81; microscope 65.93 ± 9.44) of the ORBEYE were significantly noninferior compared to those of the microscope group (p = 0.009; p = 0.027, respectively). The cognitive workload on NASA-TLX was higher for the ORBEYE. Novices preferred the freedom of movement and ergonomics of the ORBEYE but preferred the visualization of the microscope. Conclusions: This is the first study to quantify the ORBEYE learning curve and the first randomized controlled trial to compare the ORBEYE learning curve to that of the microscope. The plateau performance and learning rate of the ORBEYE are significantly noninferior to those of the microscope in a preclinical grape dissection task. This study also supports the ergonomics of the ORBEYE as reported in preliminary observational studies and highlights visualization as a focus for further development.
ABSTRACT
Virtual environments are commonly used to assess spatial cognition in humans. For the past few decades, researchers have used virtual environments to investigate how people navigate, learn, and remember their surrounding environment. In combination with tools such as electroencephalogram, neuroimaging, and electrophysiology, these virtual environments have proven invaluable in their ability to help elucidate the underlying neural mechanisms of spatial learning and memory in humans. However, a critical assumption that is made whenever using virtual experiences is that the spatial abilities used in the navigation of these virtual environments accurately represents the spatial abilities used in the real-world. The aim of the current study is to investigate the spatial relationships between real and virtual environments to better understand how well the virtual experiences parallel the same experiences in the real-world. Here, we performed three independent experiments to examine whether spatial information about object location, environment layout, and navigation strategy transfers between parallel real-world and virtual-world experiences. We show that while general spatial information does transfer between real and virtual environments, there are several limitations of the virtual experience. Compared to the real-world, the use of information in the virtual-world is less flexible, especially when testing spatial memory from a novel location, and the way in which we navigate these experiences are different as the perceptual and proprioceptive feedback gained from the real-world experience can influence navigation strategy.
