Digital 3D “Heads-up” Cataract Surgery: Safety Profile and Comparison with the Conventional Microscope System

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the complication rates between surgery performed using digital heads-up 3D system (3D group) and a conventional binocular microscope-based system (BM group) in a large series of cataract operations performed by the same surgeon.

Methods This retrospective analysis included a consecutive series of 2,000 cataract operations. The 3D group included n = 1,000 operations performed immediately following the introduction of a 3D system (Alcon Ngenuity). For comparison, the last n = 1,000 operations performed with a binocular microscope were included in the BM group. The 3D system was adapted to the existing microscope so that the microscope optics remained unchanged. The In both groups, the surgical techniques used were either phacoemulsification or femtosecond laser cataract surgery. Complications were recorded and analyzed retrospectively.

Results The proportion of femto-laser cataract operations was 19.8% in the 3D group and 18.6% in the BM group. Capsule rupture occurred in 10 eyes (3D: n = 4 (0.4%), anterior vitrectomy: n = 2, pars plana vitrectomy: n = 1; BM: n = 6 cases (0.6%), anterior vitrectomy: n = 4, pars plana vitrectomy: n = 1). A short-term iris prolapse occurred in 3 eyes (3D: n = 2, BM: n = 1). Zonulolysis occurred in 2 eyes (3D: n = 1, BM: n = 1). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.5). There was no significant increase in the duration of surgery following the switch to the 3D technique.

Conclusion In a large series of 2000 eyes, there was no significant difference between 3D and BM surgery in terms of the safety profile during cataract surgery. 3D surgery can, therefore, be used for cataract operations without additional risk.

Key words

heads-up surgery - microscope - cataract - 3D surgery

Publication History

Received: 15 March 2021

Accepted: 02 November 2021

Article published online:
18 February 2022

• Literatur/References

• 1 Franken RJ, Gupta SC, Banis jr. JC. et al. Microsurgery without a microscope: laboratory evaluation of a three-dimensional on-screen microsurgery system. Microsurgery 1995; 16: 746-751 DOI: 10.1002/micr.1920161109.
• 2 Eckardt C, Paulo EB. Heads-Up Surgery for Vitreoretinal Procedures: An Experimental and Clinical Study. Retina 2016; 36: 137-147 DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000689.
• 3 Chhaya N, Helmy O, Piri N. et al. Comparison of 2D and 3D Video Displays for Teaching Vitreoretinal Surgery. Retina 2018; 38: 1556-1561 DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001743.
• 4 Palácios RM, Maia A, Farah ME. et al. Learning curve of three-dimensional heads-up vitreoretinal surgery for treating macular holes: a prospective study. Int Ophthalmol 2019; 39: 2353-2359 DOI: 10.1007/s10792-019-01075-y.
• 5 Talcott KE, Adam MK, Sioufi K. et al. Comparison of a Three-Dimensional Heads-Up Display Surgical Platform with a Standard Operating Microscope for Macular Surgery. Ophthalmol Retina 2019; 3: 244-251 DOI: 10.1016/j.oret.2018.10.016.
• 6 Kumar A, Hasan N, Kakkar P. et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes between “heads-up” 3D viewing system and conventional microscope in macular hole surgeries: A pilot study. Indian J Ophthalmol 2018; 66: 1816-1819 DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_59_18.
• 7 Zhang T, Tang W, Xu G. Comparative Analysis of Three-Dimensional Heads-Up Vitrectomy and Traditional Microscopic Vitrectomy for Vitreoretinal Diseases. Curr Eye Res 2019; 44: 1080-1086 DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2019.1612443.
• 8 Perrier ND, Angelos P. Distant-Access Robotic Thyroidectomy-Is It Worth the Cost?. JAMA Surg 2020; 155: 1010-1012 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1491.
• 9 Stulberg JJ, Huang R, Kreutzer L. et al. Association Between Surgeon Technical Skills and Patient Outcomes. JAMA Surg 2020; 155: 960-968 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.3007.
• 10 Weinstock RJ, Diakonis VF, Schwartz AJ. et al. Heads-up Cataract Surgery: Complication Rates, Surgical Duration, and Comparison With Traditional Microscopes. J Refract Surg 2019; 35: 318-322 DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20190410-02.
• 11 Qian Z, Wang H, Fan H. et al. Three-dimensional digital visualization of phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation. Indian J Ophthalmol 2019; 67: 341-343 DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1012_18.
• 12 Betsch D, Gjerde H, Lewis D. et al. Ergonomics in the operating room: it doesnʼt hurt to think about it, but it may hurt not to!. Can J Ophthalmol 2020; 55 (3 Suppl. 1): S17-S21 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.04.004.