Search

Background: To evaluate whether medical students who have expressed a strong desire to pursue ophthalmology as a career perform simulated ophthalmic surgical tasks to a higher level than medical students whose interests lie elsewhere., Methods: All participants were fourth or fifth year students at University College London (UCL) Medical School, London, UK. One cohort was recruited from the Moorfields Academy, an ophthalmic forum designed to enhance collaboration and innovation within the specialty. These students were therefore seen as highly motivated, expressing a desire to pursue a career in ophthalmology. The other cohort of students was invited to participate during their fourth year UCL Ophthalmology attachment, but expressed interest in non-ophthalmic disciplines. Participants carried out a single attempt of three modules on the Eyesi Surgical Simulator, and total and mean scores were calculated out of 100., Results: 13 academy and 15 non-academy students were enrolled. The overall mean scores were 51/100 for the academy group, range 0-97, and 45.5/100 for the non-academy group, range 0-90 (p=0.49). Scores for precision testing, forceps training and capsulorrhexis training for academy versus non-academy were 45.8 versus 37.8 (p=0.61), 57.1 versus 52.3 (p=0.8) and 50.2 versus 46.4 (p=0.55), respectively., Conclusions: This study is the first to suggest that medical students with a strong career interest in ophthalmology do not perform microsurgical tasks to a higher level than medical students who have no goal in this area. This also indicates variation in scores between novices, which may serve as a pitfall in the use of simulators as a tool for entry into training., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Purpose: To evaluate the variability of performance among novice ophthalmic trainees in a range of repeated tasks using the Eyesi virtual reality (VR) simulator., Methods: Eighteen subjects undertook three attempts of five cataract specific and generic three-dimensional tasks: continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis, cracking and chopping, cataract navigation, bimanual cataract training, anti-tremor. Scores for each attempt were out of a maximum of 100 points. A non-parametric test was used to analyse the data, where a P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant., Results: Highly significant differences were found between the scores achieved in the first attempt and that during the second (P<0.0001) and third (P<0.0001) but not between the second and third attempt (P=0.65). There was no significant variability in the overall score between the users (P=0.1104) or in the difference between their highest and lowest score (P=0.3878). Highly significant differences between tasks were shown both in the overall score (P=0.0001) and in the difference between highest and lowest score (P=0.003)., Conclusion: This study, which is the first to quantify reproducibility of performance in entry level trainees using a VR tool, demonstrated significant intra-novice variability. The cohort of subjects performed equally overall in the range of tasks (no inter-novice variability) but each showed that performance varies significantly with the complexity of the task when using this high-fidelity instrument.