Comparison of clinical outcomes between "heads-up" 3D viewing system and conventional microscope in macular hole surgeries: A pilot study
Atul Kumar, Nasiq Hasan, Prateek Kakkar, Vineet Mutha, R Karthikeya, Dheepak Sundar, Raghav Ravani, Atul Kumar, Nasiq Hasan, Prateek Kakkar, Vineet Mutha, R Karthikeya, Dheepak Sundar, Raghav Ravani
Abstract
Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing macular hole surgery with heads-up three-dimensional (3D) viewing system and conventional microscope.
Methods: In all, 50 eyes of 50 patients with stage 3 or 4 macular hole were randomized and macular hole surgery [inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique] was performed in 25 eyes using 3D viewing system and 25 eyes using conventional microscope. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. Patients were followed up for a period of 3 months. Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity, macular hole index, intraoperative parameters such as total surgical time, total ILM peel time, number of flap initiations, duration of Brilliant Blue G dye exposure, illumination intensity, postoperative logMAR visual acuity, and macular hole closure rates were recorded and compared between the two groups.
Results: The mean age was 67.92 ± 7.95 and 67.96 ± 4.78 years in both groups, respectively (P = 0.98). Gender (P = 0.38) and right versus left eye (P = 0.39) were also comparable. Preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (P = 0.86, 0.92), macular hole index (P = 0.96), total surgical time (P = 0.56), total ILM peel time (P = 0.49), number of flap initiations (P = 0.11), and macular hole closure rates (P = 0.61) were not statistically significant when compared between the two groups. Illumination intensity of microscope (100% vs 45%) and endoillumination (40% vs 13%) were significantly less in the 3D viewing system.
Conclusion: The clinical outcomes of macular hole surgery using 3D viewing system are not inferior to that of conventional microscopes, and it has the added advantages of better ergonomics, reduced phototoxicity, peripheral visualization, magnification, and less asthenopia, and it serves as a good educational tool.
Keywords: 3D heads-up viewing system; digitally assisted vitreoretinal surgery; macular hole.
Conflict of interest statement
There are no conflicts of interest
Figures
References
- Eckardt C, Paulo EB. Heads-up surgery for vitreoretinal procedures: An experimental and clinical study. Retina. 2016;36:137–47.
- Dutra-Medeiros M, Nascimento J, Henriques J, Barrão S, Fernandes-Fonseca A, Aguiar-Silva N, et al. Three-dimensional head-mounted display system for ophthalmic surgical procedures. Retina. 2017;37:1411–4.
- Yoshihiro Yonekawa 3D Heads-Up Vitreoretinal Surgery. [Last accessed on 2017 Jul 11]. Available from: .
- Hyer JN, Lee RM, Chowdhury HR, Smith HB, Dhital A, Khandwala M, et al. National survey of back and neck pain amongst consultant ophthalmologists in the United Kingdom. Int Ophthalmol. 2015;35:769–75.
- van den Biesen PR, Berenschot T, Verdaasdonk RM, van Weelden H, van Norren D. Endoillumination during vitrectomy and phototoxicity thresholds. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1372–5.
- Adam MK, Thornton S, Regillo CD, Park C, Ho AC, Hsu J, et al. Minimal endoillumination levels and display luminous emittance during three-dimensional heads-up vitreoretinal surgery. Retina. 2017;37:1746–9.
- Takayama K, Sato T, Karasawa Y, Sato S, Ito M, Takeuchi M, et al. Phototoxicity of indocyanine green and Brilliant Blue G under continuous fluorescent illumination on cultured human retinal pigment epithelial cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:7389–94.
- Chhaya N, Helmy O, Piri N, Palacio A, Schaal S. Comparison of 2D and 3D video displays for teaching vitreoretinal surgery. Retina. 2018;38:1556–61.
Source: PubMed