Surgery-related characteristics, efficacy, safety and surgical team satisfaction of three-dimensional heads-up system versus traditional microscopic equipment for various vitreoretinal diseases

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the three-dimensional (3D) heads-up surgery with the traditional microscopic (TM) surgery for various vitreoretinal diseases.MethodsA medical record review of patients that underwent 3D heads-up or TM vitreoretinal surgeries was performed from May 2020 to October 2021 in this retrospective case–control study. Main outcome measures included surgery-related characteristics, efficacy, safety, and satisfaction feedback from the surgical team.ResultsA total of 220 (47.6%) and 242 (52.4%) eyes were included in the 3D and TM groups, respectively. The 3D heads-up system significantly benefits delicate surgical steps, like the epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling for ERM and internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular holes (P < 0.05). The 3D heads-up system could facilitate a significantly better visual outcome for pathologic myopic foveoschisis (P = 0.049), while no difference by TM surgery (P = 0.45). For the satisfaction feedback, the 3D heads-up system was rated significantly higher in most subscales and the overall score (P < 0.05). The surgeons’ ratings on operating accuracy and the first assistants’ rating on operating accuracy and operation cooperation were significantly higher in the TM group than in the 3D group (P < 0.05). Besides that, the 3D heads-up surgery was comparable with TM surgery in the surgery-related characteristics, choice of tamponades, postoperative VA, primary anatomic success, and perioperative complications (P > 0.05).ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of the 3D heads-up surgery were generally comparable to the TM surgery. The 3D heads-up system could significantly benefit delicate surgical steps and achieve better surgical team satisfaction.