Background The quality of ophthalmic surgical training is increasingly challenged by an untimely convergence of several factors. This article reviews the tools currently available for training and assessment in phacoemulsification surgery.
Methods Medline searches were performed to identify articles with combinations of the following words: phacoemulsification, training, curriculum, virtual reality and assessment. Further articles were obtained by manually searching the reference lists of identified papers.
Results Thus far phacoemulsification training outside the operating room include wet labs and micro-surgical skills courses. These methods have been criticised for being unrealistic, inaccurate and inconsistent. Virtual reality simulators have the ability to teach phacoemulsification psychomotor skills, as well as to carry out objective assessment. Other ophthalmic surgical skill assessment tools such as Objective Assessment of Skills in Intraocular Surgery (OASIS) and Global Rating Assessment of Skills in Intraocular Surgery (GRASIS) are emerging. Assessor bias is minimised by using video-based assessments, which have been shown to reduce subjectivity. Dexterity analysis technology such as the Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device (ICSAD) and virtual reality simulators can be used as objective assessment devices.
Conclusion Improvements in technology can be utilised in ophthalmology and will help to address the increasingly limited opportunities for training and assessment during training and throughout a subsequent career (re-training and re-validation). This will inevitably translate into enhanced patient care.
- lens and zonules
- ophthalmic surgical training
- skill acquisition
- virtual reality, wet lab
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.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.