Comparing Three-Dimensional Digitally Enabled Intraoperative OCT With Conventional Microscope-Integrated OCT in Vitreoretinal Surgery: A Post Hoc Analysis of the DISCOVER Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study compared the surgeon experience between conventional microscope-integrated intraoperative optical coherence tomography (iOCT) and digitally enabled microscope-integrated iOCT in vitreoretinal surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a post hoc case-control analysis of the DISCOVER study. Conventional microscope-integrated iOCT (Rescan 700, Zeiss) was compared with digitally enabled iOCT (Artevo 800, Zeiss). Compared variables included surgical field-based visualization (ie, ocular heads-up display in the conventional group; three-dimensional screen-based visualization in the digital iOCT group) and non-surgical field-based visualization (ie, review on the external two-dimensional monitor).

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were included. Surgical field-based visualization of iOCT was significantly higher in the digitally enabled group ( < 0.0001). Required endoillumination level was significantly lower in the digital iOCT group ( < 0.0001). Surgeons reported "significant" back discomfort and headache more frequently when using conventional iOCT ( = 0.003 and = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Digitally enabled iOCT resulted in greater surgical visualization efficiency, appeared to require a lower illumination level, and may provide advantages for ergonomic-related discomfort. .