Academic Journal
Προβολή σε EDS
Συνδεδεμένο Πλήρες Κείμενο

Construct validity of five phacoemulsification modules on the EyeSi surgical simulator: a cross-sectional study across three levels of surgical expertise.

Λεπτομέρειες βιβλιογραφικής εγγραφής
Τίτλος: Construct validity of five phacoemulsification modules on the EyeSi surgical simulator: a cross-sectional study across three levels of surgical expertise.
Συγγραφείς: Laamoud I; Ophthalmology Department, Hassan II University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Dental Medicine, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco. ismail.laamoud@usmba.ac.ma., Moutei H; Ophthalmology Department, Hassan II University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Dental Medicine, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco., Chraibi F; Ophthalmology Department, Hassan II University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Dental Medicine, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco., Abdellaoui M; Ophthalmology Department, Hassan II University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Dental Medicine, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco., Benatiya Andaloussi I; Ophthalmology Department, Hassan II University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Dental Medicine, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco.
Πηγή: International ophthalmology [Int Ophthalmol] 2026 Sep 11; Vol. 46 (1). Date of Electronic Publication: 2026 Sep 11.
Τύπος έκδοσης: Journal Article; Comparative Study
Γλώσσα: English
Στοιχεία περιοδικού: Publisher: Kluwer Country of Publication: Netherlands NLM ID: 7904294 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1573-2630 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 01655701 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int Ophthalmol Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s): Publication: Dordrecht : Kluwer
Original Publication: The Hague, Junk.
Ιατρικοί όροι (MeSH): Phacoemulsification*/education , Simulation Training*/methods , Internship and Residency*/methods , Education, Medical, Graduate*/methods , Ophthalmology*/education , Clinical Competence* , Computer Simulation* , Virtual Reality*, Humans ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Female ; Male ; Reproducibility of Results ; Adult
Περίληψη: Purpose: Virtual reality simulators are increasingly integrated into cataract surgery training to facilitate skill acquisition outside the operating room. However, their educational value depends on the validity of simulated tasks. This study aimed to evaluate the construct validity of five procedural phacoemulsification modules on the EyeSi simulator (version 3.10.67) across three levels of surgical expertise.
Methods: This cross-sectional comparative study was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital and a university simulation center in Morocco. Twenty-five participants were stratified into novices (n = 17), advanced residents (n = 4), and expert surgeons (n = 4). Participants completed five EyeSi phacoemulsification modules, and performance metrics were compared across groups.
Results: Overall simulator performance improved with increasing surgical experience. Total scores differed significantly between groups (p = 0.005), with median values of 311, 365, and 473 for novices, advanced residents, and experts, respectively. Total completion time also differed significantly (p = 0.047). At the module level, construct validity was demonstrated for capsulorhexis (p = 0.030), divide and conquer (p = 0.009), and intraocular lens (IOL) insertion (p = 0.002), whereas hydrodissection and irrigation/aspiration did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.084 and p = 0.053, respectively).
Conclusions: In a recent EyeSi software version, construct validity was confirmed for three of the five evaluated procedural modules across three levels of surgical expertise. Complementary analyses further supported an association between simulator performance and surgical experience across all modules. These findings reinforce the educational value of the EyeSi simulator while highlighting the need for the continuous evaluation and refinement of individual procedural modules and their scoring algorithms.
(© 2026. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)
Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies: During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT to assist with improving the clarity and fluency of the English language. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the published article.
References: Grzybowski A, Kanclerz P (2020) Recent developments in cataract surgery. In: Grzybowski A (ed) Current concepts in ophthalmology. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 55–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25389-9_3. (PMID: 10.1007/978-3-030-25389-9_3)
Siow WT, Tan G, Loo C, Khoo K, Kee A, Tee A et al (2021) Impact of structured curriculum with simulation on bronchoscopy. Respirology 26(6):597–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.14054. (PMID: 10.1111/resp.1405433876525)
Kaplowitz K, Yazdanie M, Abazari A (2018) A review of teaching methods and outcomes of resident phacoemulsification. Surv Ophthalmol 63(2):257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.09.006. (PMID: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.09.00628941765)
Ng EMC, Salowi MA, Othman O, Uthman R, Ngah NF (2025) Cumulative summation (CUSUM)—as a tool for objective analysis of learning curve for surgeons in acquiring competency in phacoemulsification. BMC Ophthalmol 25(1):475. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-025-04246-x. (PMID: 10.1186/s12886-025-04246-x4083085112362908)
Khodriss C, Bouri HE, Benmerak R, Tahiri R, Bendali J, Benhaddouch Y et al (2025) Second victim syndrome in ophthalmology: contributory factors and insights from the first study. AJO Int 2(3):100150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoint.2025.100150. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ajoint.2025.100150)
Reznick RK, MacRae H (2006) Teaching surgical skills—changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 355(25):2664–2669. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054785 . (Cox M, Irby DM, editors.). (PMID: 10.1056/NEJMra05478517182991)
Khalifa YM, Bogorad D, Gibson V, Peifer J, Nussbaum J (2006) Virtual reality in ophthalmology training. Surv Ophthalmol 51(3):259–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.02.005. (PMID: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.02.00516644366)
Al Hajaj SW, Ravichandran C, Swaminathan K, Bharadwaj S, Nair VV, Shoukry H et al (2026) Bridging the gap: a scoping review of wet and dry lab simulation training in orthopaedic surgical education. World J Orthop. 17(1):111648. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v17.i1.111648. (PMID: 10.5312/wjo.v17.i1.1116484160848912836163)
Ahmed TM, Hussain B, Siddiqui MAR (2020) Can simulators be applied to improve cataract surgery training: a systematic review. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 5(1):e000488. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000488. (PMID: 10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000488329539977481074)
Schout BMA, Hendrikx AJM, Scheele F, Bemelmans BLH, Scherpbier AJJA (2010) Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc 24(3):536–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0634-9. (PMID: 10.1007/s00464-009-0634-919633886)
Messick S, (1990) Validity of test interpretation and use.
Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Satava RM (2003) Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surg Endosc 17(10):1525–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-0035-4. (PMID: 10.1007/s00464-003-0035-414502403)
Elm EV, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335(7624):806–808. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD. (PMID: 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD)
Saleh GM, Gauba V, Mitra A, Litwin AS, Chung AKK, Benjamin L (2007) Objective structured assessment of cataract surgical skill. Arch Ophthalmol 125(3):363–366. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.125.3.363. (PMID: 10.1001/archopht.125.3.36317353407)
Selvander M, Åsman P (2012) Virtual reality cataract surgery training: learning curves and concurrent validity. Acta Ophthalmol 90(5):412–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.02028.x. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.02028.x21054818)
Stopyra W, Voytsekhivskyy O, Grzybowski A (2025) Accuracy of 7 artificial intelligence-based intraocular lens power calculation formulas in medium-long eyes: 2-center study. Can J Ophthalmol 60(4):200–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2025.01.020. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2025.01.02039965754)
Privett B, Greenlee E, Rogers G, Oetting TA (2010) Construct validity of a surgical simulator as a valid model for capsulorhexis training. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(11):1835–1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.05.020. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.05.02021029889)
Le TDB, Adatia FA, Lam WC (2011) Virtual reality ophthalmic surgical simulation as a feasible training and assessment tool: results of a multicentre study. Can J Ophthalmol 46(1):56–60. https://doi.org/10.3129/i10-051. (PMID: 10.3129/i10-05121283159)
Selvander M, Åsman P (2013) Cataract surgeons outperform medical students in Eyesi virtual reality cataract surgery: evidence for construct validity. Acta Ophthalmol 91(5):469–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02440.x. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02440.x22676143)
Spiteri AV, Aggarwal R, Kersey TL, Sira M, Benjamin L, Darzi AW et al (2014) Development of a virtual reality training curriculum for phacoemulsification surgery. Eye (Lond) 28(1):78–84. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2013.211. (PMID: 10.1038/eye.2013.21124071776)
Thomsen ASS, Kiilgaard JF, Kjærbo H, La Cour M, Konge L (2015) Simulation‐based certification for cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol 93(5):416–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12691. (PMID: 10.1111/aos.1269125722080)
Colné J, Conart JB, Luc A, Perrenot C, Berrod JP, Angioi-Duprez K (2019) EyeSi surgical simulator: construct validity of capsulorhexis, phacoemulsification and irrigation and aspiration modules. J Fr Ophtalmol 42(1):49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2018.02.029 . (PubMed PMID: 30611541). (PMID: 10.1016/j.jfo.2018.02.02930611541)
Yaïci R, Poirot J, Dormegny L, Neumann N, Bazarya E, Solecki L et al (2024) Validity evidence of a new virtual reality simulator for phacoemulsification training in cataract surgery. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76405-x. (PMID: 10.1038/s41598-024-76405-x3946199311513110)
Selvander M, Asman P (2013) Ready for OR or not? Human reader supplements Eyesi scoring in cataract surgical skills assessment. OPTH. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S48374. (PMID: 10.2147/OPTH.S48374)
Dooley IJ, O’Brien PD (2006) Subjective difficulty of each stage of phacoemulsification cataract surgery performed by basic surgical trainees. J Cataract Refract Surg 32(4):604–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.01.045 . (PubMed PMID: 16698480). (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.01.04516698480)
Prakash G, Jhanji V, Sharma N, Gupta K, Titiyal JS, Vajpayee RB (2009) Assessment of perceived difficulties by residents in performing routine steps in phacoemulsification surgery and in managing complications. Can J Ophthalmol 44(3):284–287. https://doi.org/10.3129/i09-051. (PMID: 10.3129/i09-05119491983)
Koser E, Atik BK, Emul M, Ahmet S, Besek NK, Cubuk MO et al (2025) Clinical features, management, and outcomes of posterior capsule rupture during phacoemulsification surgery. ABO 88(5):1–8. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2024-0328. (PMID: 10.5935/0004-2749.2024-0328)
Ti SE, Yang YN, Lang SS, Chee SP (2014) A 5-year audit of cataract surgery outcomes after posterior capsule rupture and risk factors affecting visual acuity. Am J Ophthalmol 157(1):180-185.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.08.022. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.08.02224182746)
Colvard MD (1997) Bimanual technique to manage subincisional cortical material. J Cataract Refract Surg 23(5):707–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-3350(97)80277-5. (PMID: 10.1016/S0886-3350(97)80277-59278789)
Narayan A, Neo YN, Lockington D, Day AC (2025) Timing of posterior capsular rupture during cataract surgery. Eye 39(14):2708–2712. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-025-03942-8. (PMID: 10.1038/s41433-025-03942-84070763912446471)
Forslund Jacobsen M, Konge L, La Cour M, Holm L, Kjærbo H, Moldow B et al (2020) Simulation of advanced cataract surgery – validation of a newly developed test. Acta Ophthalmol 98(7):687–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14439. (PMID: 10.1111/aos.14439323043577687069)
Nair AG, Lansingh VC, Fynn-Thompson N (2025) The consultant-trainee paradox in simulation: a question of validity, not inherent skill. Indian J Ophthalmol 73(10):1549–1550. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_1489_25. (PMID: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_1489_254099592512507268)
Jung Y, Kim K, Choi ST, Kang JM, Cho NR, Ko DS et al (2022) Association between surgeon age and postoperative complications/mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Sci Rep 12(1):11251. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15275-7. (PMID: 10.1038/s41598-022-15275-7357886589252995)
Campbell RJ, El-Defrawy SR, Gill SS, Whitehead M, Campbell EDLP, Hooper PL et al (2019) Association of cataract surgical outcomes with late surgeon career stages: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Ophthalmol 137(1):58. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.4886. (PMID: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.4886303260216439785)
Bhat S, Chia B, Babidge W, Maddern GJ (2023) Assessing performance in ageing surgeons: systematic review. Br J Surg 110(11):1425–1427. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znad158. (PMID: 10.1093/bjs/znad1583726010810564395)
Cremers SL, Lora AN, Ferrufino-Ponce ZK (2005) Global rating assessment of skills in intraocular surgery (GRASIS). Ophthalmology 112(10):1655–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.05.010. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.05.01016102834)
Pokroy R, Du E, Alzaga A, Khodadadeh S, Steen D, Bachynski B et al (2013) Impact of simulator training on resident cataract surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251(3):777–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-012-2160-z. (PMID: 10.1007/s00417-012-2160-z23007233)
Baxter JM, Lee R, Sharp JaH, Foss AJE, Intensive Cataract Training Study Group (2013) Intensive cataract training: a novel approach. Eye (Lond) 27(6):742–746. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2013.54. (PMID: 10.1038/eye.2013.54235986733682359)
Roohipoor R, Yaseri M, Teymourpour A, Kloek C, Miller JB, Loewenstein JI (2017) Early performance on an eye surgery simulator predicts subsequent resident surgical performance. J Surg Educ 74(6):1105–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.04.002. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.04.00228434885)
Adnane I, Chahbi M, Elbelhadji M (2020) Simulation virtuelle pour l’apprentissage de la chirurgie de cataracte. J Fr Ophtalmol 43(4):334–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2019.08.006. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jfo.2019.08.00631987677)
Dormegny L, Yaïci R, Koestel E, Dhubhghaill SN, Ahiwalay C, Bacchav A et al (2025) Global trends and practice patterns in virtual reality simulation training for ophthalmic surgery: an international survey use of virtual reality simulation training around the world. Sci Rep 15(1):30886. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-16227-7. (PMID: 10.1038/s41598-025-16227-74084704912373949)
Contributed Indexing: Keywords: Cataract surgery; Construct validity; EyeSi surgical simulator; Phacoemulsification; Surgical simulation; Virtual reality
Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20260911 Date Completed: 20260911 Latest Revision: 20260911
Update Code: 20260912
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-026-04251-z
PMID: 42726347
Βάση Δεδομένων: MEDLINE
Περιγραφή
ISSN:1573-2630
DOI:10.1007/s10792-026-04251-z