Author:
Talcott Katherine E.,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.
Abstract
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.]