April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Comparison of reaction response time between hand and foot controlled devices in simulated microsurgical testing
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Marcel Pfister
    Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
    Ophthamology, USC, Los Angeles, CA
  • Jawchyng Lormen Lue
    Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  • Michael J Koss
    Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
    Ophthamology, USC, Los Angeles, CA
  • Francisco Rosa Stefanini
    Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
    Ophthamology, USC, Los Angeles, CA
  • Paulo Falabella
    Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA
    Ophthamology, USC, Los Angeles, CA
  • Mark S Humayun
    Ophthamology, USC, Los Angeles, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Marcel Pfister, None; Jawchyng Lue, Bausch & Lomb (F); Michael Koss, None; Francisco Stefanini, None; Paulo Falabella, None; Mark Humayun, Bausch & Lomb (C), Bausch & Lomb (F), Bausch & Lomb (I), Bausch & Lomb (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 2332. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Marcel Pfister, Jawchyng Lormen Lue, Michael J Koss, Francisco Rosa Stefanini, Paulo Falabella, Mark S Humayun, ; Comparison of reaction response time between hand and foot controlled devices in simulated microsurgical testing. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):2332.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: The cut and vacuum rates of most modern vitreous cutters are controlled by foot-paddle. We hypothesized that reaction times (RT) for the switch release are faster for hand- than for foot-controlled switches for physiological, anatomical (e.g. nerve conduction speed) and ergonomic reasons. The risk of accidental trauma to eye (e.g. sucking retina into the vitreous cutter) could be reduced if the surgeon reacted quicker to reduce vacuum power and to improve the surgical outcome.

Methods: The study included 47 medical students and ophthalmic surgeons at USC. Age, dominant/non-dominant hand/foot, gender and experience level were recorded. Under a microscope, a red light emitting diode (LED) was shown as a START indicator. After the start signal, participants expected a green LED signal to trigger their release of a hand- or footswitch. The duration between start time and the green LED signal was randomized as was the order of the four extremities tested. The RT is the time between the green LED signal and the break in the switch circuitry. Each extremity of each individual was tested 5 times. A subjective questionnaire was also administered addressing ergonomic preferences.

Results: The mean RT: hands 318.24ms±51.13; feet 328.69ms±48.70. Comparison: Hand vs. Foot: mean (SD) = -10.45ms (30.86), p= 0.025. Male subjects' responses (291ms±9) were statistically significantly faster than females' (339ms±10, p = 0.001). The analysis and comparison of each extremity for the different experience level groups (years of microscopic surgery (YMS): 0 years to 8 or more years / microscopic surgeries per week (MPW): 0 to 10 or more) showed partially significant differences between the groups (YMS p=0.01-0.003/ MPW p=0.57-0.002) but no statistically significant trend toward shorter RTs with more years of practice (p=0.81-0.4) or more surgeries per week (p=0.8-0.28). According to the results of the subjective questionnaire, 89% (n=42) of test subjects prefer to use hand-controls for the vitreous cutter.

Conclusions: Our data show that the RT for hands is faster than feet. Similarly the subjective questionnaire showed a greater preference for hand actuation than foot actuation of switch. This data suggest a hand-controlled ophthalmic instrument might have distinct advantages than a foot-controlled unit; however, clinical correlation is required to confirm these findings.

Keywords: 762 vitreoretinal surgery • 468 clinical research methodology • 465 clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×