Comparing Three-Dimensional Digitally Enabled Intraoperative OCT With Conventional Microscope-Integrated OCT in Vitreoretinal Surgery A Post Hoc Analysis of the DISCOVER Study

Comparing Three-Dimensional Digitally Enabled Intraoperative OCT With Conventional Microscope-Integrated OCT in Vitreoretinal Surgery : A Post Hoc Analysis of the DISCOVER Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study compared the surgeon experience between conventional microscope-integrated intraoperative optical coherence tomography (iOCT) and digitally enabled microscope-integrated iOCT in vitreoretinal surgery

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina. - 2013. - 55(2024), 5 vom: 12. Mai, Seite 270-277
1. Verfasser: Talcott, Katherine E (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Knapp, Austen N, Amine, Reem, Matar, Karen, Srivastava, Sunil K, Rachitskaya, Aleksandra, Sharma, Sumit, Singh, Rishi P, Yuan, Alex, Reese, Jamie L, Ehlers, Justis P
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2024
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina
Schlagworte:Journal Article Comparative Study
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study compared the surgeon experience between conventional microscope-integrated intraoperative optical coherence tomography (iOCT) and digitally enabled microscope-integrated iOCT in vitreoretinal surgery
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a post hoc case-control analysis of the DISCOVER study. Conventional microscope-integrated iOCT (Rescan 700, Zeiss) was compared with digitally enabled iOCT (Artevo 800, Zeiss). Compared variables included surgical field-based visualization (ie, ocular heads-up display in the conventional group; three-dimensional screen-based visualization in the digital iOCT group) and non-surgical field-based visualization (ie, review on the external two-dimensional monitor)
RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were included. Surgical field-based visualization of iOCT was significantly higher in the digitally enabled group (P < 0.0001). Required endoillumination level was significantly lower in the digital iOCT group (P < 0.0001). Surgeons reported "significant" back discomfort and headache more frequently when using conventional iOCT (P = 0.003 and P = 0.001, respectively)
CONCLUSIONS: Digitally enabled iOCT resulted in greater surgical visualization efficiency, appeared to require a lower illumination level, and may provide advantages for ergonomic-related discomfort. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2024;55:270-277.]
Beschreibung:Date Completed 16.05.2024
Date Revised 10.09.2024
published: Print-Electronic
Citation Status MEDLINE
ISSN:2325-8179
DOI:10.3928/23258160-20240206-01