Aim To compare the surgical experience and preferred imaging platform, between digitally assisted vitreoretinal surgery systems (DAVS) and analogue microscope (AM), for performing various surgical manoeuvres.
Material and methods A questionnaire was used to evaluate the experience of surgeons who used DAVS for at least 6 months in the last 1 year.
Results Twenty-three surgeons, including 12 fellows, answered the questionnaire. Eighty-two per cent of surgeons got accustomed to DAVS in <10 surgeries. The higher magnification provided by DAVS was perceived as helpful by 87.0% surgeons. Seventy-eight per cent surgeons felt that DAVS provided a bigger field of view. Colours displayed on DAVS appeared unnatural to 39.1%. Difficulty using three-dimensional glasses over spectacles, asthenopia and dry eye symptoms while using DAVS were faced by 17.4%, 17.4% and 21.7% surgeons, respectively. Difficulty in frequent switching between DAVS and AM was faced by 30.4% surgeons. Difficulty in depth perception, hand–eye coordination and performance anxiety while using DAVS was faced by 43.5%, 21.7 % and 30.4 % surgeons, respectively. Majority consultants did not have any imaging platform preference for most posterior segment procedures, while majority fellows preferred DAVS. Majority surgeons preferred AM for anterior segment procedures and complicated situations like small pupil, corneal oedema and surgical surprise(s). Once the surgeons became accustomed to DAVS, none of them had to shift back to AM during any case.
Conclusion It was easy to adapt to DAVS. DAVS was preferred for performing most posterior segment surgeries. Drawbacks like unnatural colours of the projected image and difficulty in performing anterior segment manoeuvres need to be addressed.
- posterior chamber
- treatment surgery
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors NB, SJ and KR: conception and design, critical revision of manuscript, final approval of the version published and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. PK: conception and design, data acquisition, data analysis, drafting manuscript, critical revision of manuscript, final approval of the version published and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement Data are available in a public, open access repository.