ArticleBMC medical education2026
Teaching ophthalmic microsurgical skills: conventional microscopy versus heads-up visualization.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare training effects between conventional operating microscope and a3D heads-up system using the EyeSi
methodsIn a prospective single-center crossover study, 16 medical students with ophthalmological exposure and 16 residents completed standardized cataract and vitrectomy modules on the EyeSi
resultsIn the vitrectomy simulation, no significant difference in scores was found between visualization systems (p = 0.126), whereas in the cataract simulation, the conventional microscope achieved significantly higher scores (p = 0.023). The overall task scores did not differ significantly (p = 0.376). Subjectively, the 3D system was rated superior regarding control (p = 0.013), instrument handling (p = 0.033), movement precision (p < 0.001), comfort, and instructor interaction (p < 0.001). Students tended to prefer the 3D system, whereas residents more often preferred the conventional microscope, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.183). All participants reported that skills acquired with the 3D system could be perceived transferability to the conventional microscope.
conclusionThe 3D display achieved comparable simulator performance in the vitrectomy module but lower performance in the cataract module compared with the conventional microscope, while offering perceived didactic and ergonomic advantages. The differing preferences between students and residents may suggest a possible habituation effect due to prior slit-lamp use and familiarity with conventional visualization techniques. As digital visualization systems are becoming increasingly integrated into contemporary ophthalmic surgery, early exposure to heads-up technology during simulator-based training may help familiarize trainees with modern visualization techniques. Future clinical studies are required to determine whether these simulator-based findings translate into improved operative performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.