Т.А. MOROZOVA¹, А.Е. TERENTJEVA², N.А. POZDEEVA²

¹Institute of Biomedical Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation, 76A Khoroshevskoe highway, Moscow, Russian Federation, 123007

²Cheboksary Branch of Federal State Autonomous Institution “Interbranch scientific and technical complex “Eye Microsurgery” named after Acad. S.N. Fedorov” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 10 Traktorostroiteley Ave., Cheboksary, Russian Federation, 428028

 Morozova T.A. — Cand. Med. Sc., Senior Research Scientist, tel. +7-916-207-03-73, e-mail: tatianamorozovamd@gmail.com

Terentjeva A.E. — Ophthalmologist, e-mail: anyaterentieva@yandex.ru

Pozdeeva N.A. — Doc. Med. Sc., Deputy Director for Science, e-mail: npozdeeva@mail.ru

 The purpose of the study was to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, ergonomics of 3D technology in ophthalmosurgery, study the subjective evaluation of the perception of the stereosystem in relation to the visual functions of ophthalmic surgeons.

Material and methods. Functional results of 43 microsurgical interventions using 3D technology for the pathology of the anterior and posterior segments of the eyeball have been analyzed. Two groups of surgeons (16 specialists in total, average age of the 1^st — 34 ± 5,3 y.o., of the 2^nd group — 55 ± 2,3 y.o.) who performed microsurgical interventions using stereoplatforms, carried out studies of visual acuity, refractometry, vision, accommodative response, sharpness of stereo vision and fusional reserves. Subjective evaluation of the methodology was carried out using a questionnaire that included 35 questions and a summary assessment of the five-point system of key characteristics of the methodology.

Results and discussion. Functional results obtained after surgery are comparable with those after traditional 2D surgery. Complication happened in one case. In the 1^st and the 2^ndgroups of surgeons the uncorrected and corrected visual acuity did not differ. The average parameters of the sharpness of the stereo vision were also close in both groups. In the first group — 4.37 ± 1.40, in the second group — 4.87 ± 2.41. Correlation coefficients were 0.13 (p <0.05) and -0.3 (p <0.05), respectively, which indicates a low correlation of the severity of stereoscopic vision with age. The indicators of fusional reserves were slightly higher in the 2^ndgroup. The average value of convergent reserves in the 1^stgroup was 41.7 ± 10.8º, in the 2^ndgroup — 42.9 ± 8.2º, and divergent reserves — 11.6 ± 3.08 and -13.9 ± 2.08, which significantly exceeds the average values ​​of the norm. The average assessment of the ergonomics of the new technique was 3.75 in the 1^st group and 3.37 in the 2^ndgroup.

Conclusion.3D technology is dependent on the functional features of the visual analyzer of the surgeon and the scope of surgical activity. The expansion of the 3D platform’s potential should be directed towards increasing the depth of focus, increasing the clarity of the image and reducing the time of image formation.

 Key words: three-dimensional procedures, ophthalmosurgery, stereoscopic vision, fusional amplitude.

(For citation: Morozova T.A., Terentjeva A.E., Pozdeeva N.A. 3D Technologies for ophthalmosurgery: early experiece. Practical Medicine. 2018)  

REFERENCES

1. Mendez B.M., Chiodo M.V., Vandevender D. et al. Heads-up 3D microscopy: an ergonomic and educational approach to microsurgery. PlastReconstr Surg Glob, 2016, no. 4(5), e717.
2. Dhimitri K.C., McGwin G., McNeal S.F. et al. Symtoms of musculoskeletal disorders in ophthalmologists. Am J Ophthalmol, 2005, no. 139, pp. 179–81.
3. Hyer J.N., Lee R.M., Chowdhury H.R., Smith H.B., Dhital A., Khandwala M. National survey of back & neck pain amongst consultant ophthalmologists in the United Kingdom. Int Ophthalmol, 2015, no. 35, pp. 769–75.
4. Eckardt C., Paulo E.B. Heads-up surgery for vitreoretinal procedures: an experimental and clinical study. Retina, 2016, no. 36, pp. 137–147.
5. Weinstock R.J., Desai N. Surgical Techniques in Ophthalmology — Cataract Surgery. Heads up cataract surgery with the TrueVision 3D Display System In: Garg A., Alio J.L., eds. New Dehli, India: Jaypee Medical Publishers, 2010. Pp. 124–127.
6. Weinstock R.J. Operate with your head up. Cataract Refract Surg Today, 2011, no. 8, pp. 66-74.
7. Moura-Coelho N., Patel A.S., Dutra-Medeiros M. Three-Dimensional display systems for surgery in ophthalmology, May 30, 2017, available at: http://aao.org/Three-Dimensional Display Systems for Surgery in Ophthalmology.
8. Mohamed Y.H. et al. “First Experience of nDSAEK with Heads-up Surgery: A Case Report.” Ed. Samantha Martin. Medicine, 96.19, 2017, e6906.
9. Adam M.K., Thornton S., Regillo C.D., Park C, Ho A.C., Hsu J. Minimal end oil lamination levels and display luminousemittance during three-dimensional heads-up vitreoretinalsurgery. Retina, 2017, vol. 37, pp. 1746–1749.
10. Kunikata H., Abe T., Nakazawa T. Heads-upmacularsurgerywith a 27-gauge microincisionvitrectomysystemandminimal illumination. CaseRepOphthalmol, 2016, no. 7(3), pp 265–269.
11. Dutra-Medeiros M., Nascimento J., Henriques J., Barrão S., Fernandes-Fonseca A., Aguiar-Silva N., Moura-Coelho N., Ágoas V. Three-Dimensional head-mounted display system for ophthalmic surgical procedures. Retina, Jan 16, 2017, vol. 37(7), pp. 1411–1412.
12. Rozenblyum Yu.Z. Optometriya. 2-e izd., ispr. i dop. [Optometry. 2nd ed., Corr. and add.]. Saint Petersburg: Gippokrat, 1996. 320 p.
13. Adam M.K., Ho A.C. The Prosand Consof Heads-up Surgery. Review of Ophthalmology, 2017, no. 12, pp. 53–55.