File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A comparison of hand- and foot-activated surgical tools in simulated ophthalmic surgery

TitleA comparison of hand- and foot-activated surgical tools in simulated ophthalmic surgery
Authors
Issue Date2012
Citation
Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, 2012, v. 47, n. 5, p. 414-417 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: To compare the performance characteristics of hand-activated surgical tools with those of foot-activated surgical tools using a virtual-reality simulator of intraocular surgery. Design: Prospective, unmasked, interventional cohort study. Participants: Eighteen ophthalmology residents at the University of Toronto. Methods: The EYESi ophthalmic surgery simulator was used for the study. The surgical tool evaluated was a simulation of intraocular forceps activated by either a handpiece or a foot pedal. Each resident completed 2 modules - a dexterity module and a capsulorrhexis/ cataract module. Each module was completed 4 times, alternating between the hand-activated forceps and the foot-activated forceps. An overall score was calculated for each task on the basis of the efficiency and accuracy of completion of the task, with 100 representing a perfect score. Overall scores were compared between hand and foot control for both modules. Results: For the dexterity module, there was no significant difference in the overall scores between the 2 groups (91 ± 6 and 93 ± 6 for the foot- and hand-activated forceps groups, respectively; p > 0.05, t test). For the capsulorrhexis module, overall scores were also similar for both groups, the scores being 50 ± 21 and 53 ± 16 for the foot- and hand-activated forceps groups, respectively (p > 0.05, t test). An exit survey of the study's participants revealed that subjects did not have a preference for the hand or foot modality of the forceps tool, with 10 preferring the hand-activated forceps tool and 8 preferring the foot-activated tool. Conclusions: During simulated intraocular surgery, foot- and hand-activated surgical tools appear to have similar performance characteristics and are equally well received by residents. © 2012 Canadian Ophthalmological Society.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/228147
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.46
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.685

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPodbielski, Dominik W.-
dc.contributor.authorNoble, Jason-
dc.contributor.authorGill, Harmeet S.-
dc.contributor.authorSit, Marisa-
dc.contributor.authorLam, Wai Ching-
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-01T06:45:18Z-
dc.date.available2016-08-01T06:45:18Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.citationCanadian Journal of Ophthalmology, 2012, v. 47, n. 5, p. 414-417-
dc.identifier.issn0008-4182-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/228147-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the performance characteristics of hand-activated surgical tools with those of foot-activated surgical tools using a virtual-reality simulator of intraocular surgery. Design: Prospective, unmasked, interventional cohort study. Participants: Eighteen ophthalmology residents at the University of Toronto. Methods: The EYESi ophthalmic surgery simulator was used for the study. The surgical tool evaluated was a simulation of intraocular forceps activated by either a handpiece or a foot pedal. Each resident completed 2 modules - a dexterity module and a capsulorrhexis/ cataract module. Each module was completed 4 times, alternating between the hand-activated forceps and the foot-activated forceps. An overall score was calculated for each task on the basis of the efficiency and accuracy of completion of the task, with 100 representing a perfect score. Overall scores were compared between hand and foot control for both modules. Results: For the dexterity module, there was no significant difference in the overall scores between the 2 groups (91 ± 6 and 93 ± 6 for the foot- and hand-activated forceps groups, respectively; p > 0.05, t test). For the capsulorrhexis module, overall scores were also similar for both groups, the scores being 50 ± 21 and 53 ± 16 for the foot- and hand-activated forceps groups, respectively (p > 0.05, t test). An exit survey of the study's participants revealed that subjects did not have a preference for the hand or foot modality of the forceps tool, with 10 preferring the hand-activated forceps tool and 8 preferring the foot-activated tool. Conclusions: During simulated intraocular surgery, foot- and hand-activated surgical tools appear to have similar performance characteristics and are equally well received by residents. © 2012 Canadian Ophthalmological Society.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofCanadian Journal of Ophthalmology-
dc.titleA comparison of hand- and foot-activated surgical tools in simulated ophthalmic surgery-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcjo.2012.05.003-
dc.identifier.pmid23036541-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84869233064-
dc.identifier.volume47-
dc.identifier.issue5-
dc.identifier.spage414-
dc.identifier.epage417-
dc.identifier.eissn1715-3360-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats