RESUMO
Purpose: To assess the face and content validity of an artificial eye model for secondary intraocular lens (IOL) fixation via the Yamane technique. Methods: Ophthalmologists and residents participated in a 90-minute simulation session on secondary IOL fixation via the Yamane technique. Hands-on practice of this technique was performed on an artificial eye, the Bioniko Okulo BR8. After, all ophthalmologists answered an 18-question survey assessing the face and content validity of the model. Survey responses were recorded on a 5-point double-headed Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree (1)-to-strongly disagree (5) (Figure 1). Results: Twenty-three surveys were completed. Respondents rated the survey with a median response of 1 (strongly agree)-to-3 (neutral). Highest ratings for the model were received for "usefulness for training residents", and "easier to set up and clean-up compared to a cadaver". Lowest ratings were received for realism of the model compared to cadaveric eyes. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference among identified groups. Ratings for face and content validity were viewed favorably, both with an overall median response of 2.00 (agree). Conclusion: The Bioniko Okulo BR8 shows promise as a valid tool for practicing secondary IOL fixation via the Yamane technique. Considering recent guidelines in competency-based ophthalmology education programs, this model may be a valuable tool over traditional techniques for teaching and improving surgical skill amongst trainees.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: 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.
