medigraphic.com
ISSN 2683-2348 (Electronic)
Federación Latinoamericana de Simulación Clínica y Seguridad del Paciente

2020, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Simulación Clínica 2020; 2 (2)

Construct validity of the use of virtual reality in cataract surgery: systematic review

Di-Luciano A, Montero M, Chewerk H

Language: Spanish
References: 36
Page: 71-80
PDF size: 272.45 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The use of virtual reality (VR) in surgical training has been gaining popularity. The use of VR is used today as part of surgical training programs in many centers. For this reason, the need arises to evaluate the real impact of VR on training in cataract surgery. The objective of this manuscript, is to carry out a systematic review of the literature on construct validity in the use of VR in cataract surgery. Material and methods: Systematic review was done using PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published from January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2018. Search keywords were: simulation in ophthalmology, virtual reality, construct validity and cataract surgery. The inclusion criteria were the following: (1) articles published in the last 10 years; (2) related to virtual reality simulation in cataract surgery and (3) articles that evaluate construct validity. We also include articles on cost analysis and learning tools that could be associated with simulation training. After the search, we found 52 articles of which we used 15 for the systematic review and 21 for the discussion. Results: The modules that have shown constructive validity are anti-tremor and forceps, capsulorexis, hydration maneuvers, cracks and chopping (p ‹ 0.05). The use of VR in cataract surgery has shown good results in real patients through a lower posterior capsule rupture rate (p = 0.032), vitreous loss, less phaco time (p = 0.02) and time of operation (p = 0.001). Surgeons’ increased confidence in the steps of surgery are also reported. Assessing performance with VR is of utmost importance as it will partly determine the readiness of new generations of surgeons and the future surgical outcomes of patients. Objective Structured Assessment of Cataract Surgical Ability (OSACSS) and Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Surgical Skills (OSATS) have been used to assess surgical performance in residents. Conclusions: The use of virtual reality in cataract surgeries is a tool that has already demonstrated its construct validity. We consider it an important alternative (complement) to training based on artificial or animal eyes. Longer-term studies with more standardized designs are needed to assess their real impact and cost effectiveness.


REFERENCES

  1. Khalifa YM, Bogorad D, Gibson V, Peifer J, Nussbaum J. Virtual reality in ophthalmology training. Surv Ophthalmol. 2006; 51: 259-273.

  2. Merril JR, Notaroberto NF, Laby DM, et al. The ophthalmic retrobulbar injection simulator (ORIS): an application of virtual reality to medical education. IEEE proceedings of annual symposium computer applications in medical care. Piscataway: IEEE Service Center; 1992. pp. 702-706.

  3. Hunter IW, Tilemachos D, Lafontaine SR, et al. A tele operated microsurgical robot and associated virtual environment for eye surgery. Presence. 1993; 2: 265-280.

  4. Hoznek A, Katz R, Gettman M, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic surgical training in urology. Curr Urol Rep. 2003; 4: 130-137.

  5. McCloy R, Stone R. Science, medicine, and the future. Virtual reality in surgery. BMJ. 2001; 323: 912-915.

  6. Letterie GS. Medical education as a science: the quality of evidence for computer-assisted instruction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188: 849-853.

  7. Satava RM, Fried MP. A methodology for objective assessment of errors: an example using an endoscopic sinus surgery simulator. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2002; 35: 1289-1301.

  8. Rowe R, Cohen RA. An evaluation of a virtual reality airway simulator. Anesth Analg. 2002; 95: 62-66.

  9. Mahr MA, Hodge DO. Construct validity of anterior segment anti- tremor and forceps surgical simulator training modules; attending versus resident surgeon performance. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34: 980-985.

  10. Selvander M, Asman P. Virtual reality cataract surgery training: learning curves and concurrent validity. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012; 90: 412-417.

  11. Privett B, Greenlee E, Rogers G, Oetting TA. Construct validity of a surgical simulator as a valid model for capsulorhexis training. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36: 1835-1838.

  12. Feudner EM, Engel C, Neuhann IM, Petermeier K, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Szurman P. Virtual reality training improves wet-lab performance of capsulorhexis: results of a randomized, controlled study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009; 247: 955-963.

  13. Selvander M, Asman P. Cataract surgeons outperform medical students in Eyesi virtual reality cataract surgery: evidence for construct validity. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013; 91: 469-474.

  14. Belyea DA, Brown SE, Rajjoub LZ. Influence of surgery simulator training on ophthalmology resident phacoemulsification performance. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37: 1756-1761.

  15. McCannel CA, Reed DC, Goldman DR. Ophthalmic surgery simulator training improves resident performance of capsulorhexis in the operating room. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120 (12): 2456-2461.

  16. Bergqvist J, Person A, Vestergaard A, Grauslund J. Establishment of a validated training programme on the Eyesi cataract simulator. A prospective randomized study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014; 92: 629-634.

  17. Starapoli PC, Gregori NZ, Junk AK, et al. Surgical simulation training reduces intraoperative cataract surgery complications among residents. Simul Healthtc. 2018; 13 (1): 11-15.

  18. Thomsen ASS, Kiilgaard JF, Kjaerbo H, et al. Simulation-based certification for cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015; 93 (5): 416-421.

  19. Thomsen ASS, Bach-Holm D, Kjaerbo H, et al. Operating room performance improves after proficiency-based virtual reality cataract surgery training. Ophthalmology. 2017; 124 (4): 524-531.

  20. Lowry EA, Porco TC, Naseri A. Cost analysis of virtual-reality phacoemulsification simulation in ophthalmology training programs. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013; 39 (10): 1616-1617.

  21. Ng DS, Sun Z, Young Al, et al. Impact of virtual reality simulation on learning barriers of phacoemulsification perceived by residents. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018; 12: 885-893.

  22. Söderberg PG, Laurell CG, Nordqvist P, Skarman E, Nordh L. Virtual cataract surgery: clinical evaluation. SPIE Proc. 200; 4951: 62-66.

  23. Söderberg PG, Laurell CG, Simawi W, Skarman E, Nordqvist P, Nordh L. Performance index for virtual reality phacoemulsification surgery. SPIE Proc. 2007; 6426 (1B): 1-9.

  24. Kozak I, Banerjee P, Luo J, Luciano C. Virtual reality simulator for vitreoretinal surgery using integrated OCT data. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014; 8: 669-672.

  25. Sikder S, Luo J, Banerjee PP, Luciano C, et al. The use of a virtual reality surgical simulator for cataract surgical skill assessment with 6 months of intervening operating room experience. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015; 9: 141-149.

  26. Daly MK, Gonzalez E, Siracuse-Lee D, et al. Efficacy of surgical simulator training versus traditional wet-lab training on operating room performance of ophthalmology residents during the capsulorhexis in cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013; 39: 1734-1741.

  27. Ament CS, Henderson BA. Optimizing resident education in cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011; 22 (1): 64-67.

  28. Lee AG, Oetting T, Beaver HA, et al. The ACGME outcome project in ophthalmology: practical recommendations for overcoming the barriers to local implementation of the national mandate. Surv Ophthalmol. 2009; 54: 507-517.

  29. Rogers GM, Oetting T, Lee AG, et al. Impact of a structured surgical curriculum on ophthalmic resident cataract surgery complication rates. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35: 1956-1960.

  30. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME program requirements for graduate medical education in ophthalmology. 2007.

  31. Saleh GM, Gauba V, Mitra A, Litwin AS, Chung AK, Benjamin L. Objective structured assessment of cataract surgical skill. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007; 125: 363-366.

  32. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997; 84: 273-278.

  33. Zigmont JJ, Kappus LJ, Sudikoff SN. The 3D model of debriefing: defusing, discovering, and deepening. Semin Perinatol. 2011; 35 (2): 52-58.

  34. Eppich W, Cheng A. Promoting excellence and reflective learning in simulation (PEARLS): development and rationale for a blended approach to health care simulation debriefing. Simul Healthc. 2015; 10 (2): 106-115.

  35. Podbielski DW, Noble J, Gill HS, Sit M, Lam WC. A comparison of hand- and foot-activated surgical tools in simulated ophthalmic surgery. Can J Ophthalmol. 2012; 47 (5): 414-417.

  36. Pokroy R, Du E, Alzaga A, et al. Impact of simulator training on resident cataract surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013; 251 (3): 777-781.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com