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

• Published in: Canadian journal of ophthalmology Vol. 47; no. 5; pp. 414 - 417
• Main Authors: Podbielski, Dominik W., MD, Noble, Jason, MD, FRCSC, Gill, Harmeet S., MD, FRCSC, Sit, Marisa, MD, FRCSC, Lam, Wai-Ching, MD, FRCSC
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Inc 01.10.2012
• Subjects: Cataract Extraction - instrumentation; Clinical Competence; Computer Simulation; Education, Medical, Graduate - standards; Foot; Hand; Humans; Internal Medicine; Internship and Residency; Ophthalmologic Surgical Procedures - instrumentation; Ophthalmology; Ophthalmology - education; Prospective Studies; User-Computer Interface
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2012.05.003
• ISSN: 0008-4182

Abstract Objective 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.