Vasilios F Diakonis, Konstantinos T Tsaousis, Caroline Watson, Kirk Castellano, Robert J Weinstock
{"title":"使用两种 3D 可视系统进行白内障手术:并发症发生率、手术时间以及与传统显微镜的比较。","authors":"Vasilios F Diakonis, Konstantinos T Tsaousis, Caroline Watson, Kirk Castellano, Robert J Weinstock","doi":"10.1177/11206721241237298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the complication rates and surgical duration of cataract surgery using two 3D visualization systems and a traditional binocular microscope among experienced and inexperienced surgeons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective case series included 571 eyes that received cataract surgery using either heads up cataract surgery, via a 3D head mounted system (<i>N</i> = 148-Group 1) or a 3D display screen (<i>N</i> = 338 eyes-Group 2), or traditional binocular microscope (<i>N</i> = 85 eyes-Group 3). The surgical records of consecutive patients who underwent cataract surgery by two groups of surgeons (experienced and inexperienced) were reviewed. Patients in all groups received either femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) or traditional phacoemulsification. Complication rate, as well as duration of cataract surgery were evaluated between all three visualization approaches, between experienced and inexperienced surgeons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistically significant difference in duration of surgery between all 3 visualization approaches for both experienced and inexperienced surgeons (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Furthermore, the type of surgical technique (manual or FLACS) did not affect the surgical duration for both experienced and inexperienced surgeons (<i>p</i> < 0.05). No intraoperative complications were demonstrated in the current cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of heads up-3D visualization either through a screen or a head mounted platform for cataract surgery seems to offer similar safety and efficiency as the traditional binocular microscope, and both experienced and inexperienced surgeons demonstrate the same outcomes in terms of safety and efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":12000,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cataract surgery using two 3D visualization systems: Complication rates, surgical duration & comparison with traditional microscopes.\",\"authors\":\"Vasilios F Diakonis, Konstantinos T Tsaousis, Caroline Watson, Kirk Castellano, Robert J Weinstock\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11206721241237298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the complication rates and surgical duration of cataract surgery using two 3D visualization systems and a traditional binocular microscope among experienced and inexperienced surgeons.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective case series included 571 eyes that received cataract surgery using either heads up cataract surgery, via a 3D head mounted system (<i>N</i> = 148-Group 1) or a 3D display screen (<i>N</i> = 338 eyes-Group 2), or traditional binocular microscope (<i>N</i> = 85 eyes-Group 3). The surgical records of consecutive patients who underwent cataract surgery by two groups of surgeons (experienced and inexperienced) were reviewed. Patients in all groups received either femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) or traditional phacoemulsification. Complication rate, as well as duration of cataract surgery were evaluated between all three visualization approaches, between experienced and inexperienced surgeons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistically significant difference in duration of surgery between all 3 visualization approaches for both experienced and inexperienced surgeons (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Furthermore, the type of surgical technique (manual or FLACS) did not affect the surgical duration for both experienced and inexperienced surgeons (<i>p</i> < 0.05). No intraoperative complications were demonstrated in the current cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of heads up-3D visualization either through a screen or a head mounted platform for cataract surgery seems to offer similar safety and efficiency as the traditional binocular microscope, and both experienced and inexperienced surgeons demonstrate the same outcomes in terms of safety and efficiency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721241237298\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721241237298","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较有经验和无经验外科医生使用两种三维可视化系统和传统双目显微镜进行白内障手术的并发症发生率和手术时间:该回顾性病例系列包括 571 只接受白内障手术的眼睛,这些眼睛分别通过三维头戴式系统(148 只--第一组)或三维显示屏(338 只--第二组)或传统双目显微镜(85 只--第三组)接受了白内障手术。回顾了由两组外科医生(经验丰富和经验不足)进行白内障手术的连续患者的手术记录。各组患者均接受了飞秒激光辅助白内障手术(FLACS)或传统的超声乳化手术。对有经验和无经验外科医生的三种可视化方法的并发症发生率和白内障手术持续时间进行了评估:结果:无论是经验丰富的外科医生还是经验不足的外科医生,三种可视化方法在手术持续时间上都没有统计学意义上的差异(P P 结论:三种可视化方法在手术持续时间上都没有统计学意义上的差异:在白内障手术中通过屏幕或头戴式平台实施仰视三维可视化,似乎与传统的双目显微镜具有相似的安全性和效率,有经验和无经验的外科医生在安全性和效率方面都表现出相同的结果。
Cataract surgery using two 3D visualization systems: Complication rates, surgical duration & comparison with traditional microscopes.
Purpose: To compare the complication rates and surgical duration of cataract surgery using two 3D visualization systems and a traditional binocular microscope among experienced and inexperienced surgeons.
Methods: This retrospective case series included 571 eyes that received cataract surgery using either heads up cataract surgery, via a 3D head mounted system (N = 148-Group 1) or a 3D display screen (N = 338 eyes-Group 2), or traditional binocular microscope (N = 85 eyes-Group 3). The surgical records of consecutive patients who underwent cataract surgery by two groups of surgeons (experienced and inexperienced) were reviewed. Patients in all groups received either femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) or traditional phacoemulsification. Complication rate, as well as duration of cataract surgery were evaluated between all three visualization approaches, between experienced and inexperienced surgeons.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference in duration of surgery between all 3 visualization approaches for both experienced and inexperienced surgeons (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the type of surgical technique (manual or FLACS) did not affect the surgical duration for both experienced and inexperienced surgeons (p < 0.05). No intraoperative complications were demonstrated in the current cohort.
Conclusions: The implementation of heads up-3D visualization either through a screen or a head mounted platform for cataract surgery seems to offer similar safety and efficiency as the traditional binocular microscope, and both experienced and inexperienced surgeons demonstrate the same outcomes in terms of safety and efficiency.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Ophthalmology was founded in 1991 and is issued in print bi-monthly. It publishes only peer-reviewed original research reporting clinical observations and laboratory investigations with clinical relevance focusing on new diagnostic and surgical techniques, instrument and therapy updates, results of clinical trials and research findings.