Science News

Comparison of clinical outcomes between “heads-up” 3D viewing system and conventional microscope in macular hole surgeries: A pilot study.

A new interesting article has been published in Indian J Ophthalmol. 2018 Dec;66(12):1816-1819. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_59_18. and titled:

Comparison of clinical outcomes between “heads-up” 3D viewing system and conventional microscope in macular hole surgeries: A pilot study.

Authors of this article are:

Kumar A, Hasan N, Kakkar P, Mutha V, Karthikeya R, Sundar D, Ravani R.

A summary of the article is shown below:

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.

Check out the article’s website on Pubmed for more information:

This article is a good source of information and a good way to become familiar with topics such as:

3D heads-up viewing system;digitally assisted vitreoretinal surgery;macular hole


Categories: Science News