June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Quality Assessment of Polymer Materials for Human Model Eye Development
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Geoffrey Nguyen
    University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Tara H. Balasubramanian
    University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Dhruv M. Shah
    University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Abel S. Odolil
    University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, Maryland, United States
  • Jamie Palmer
    University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Moran Roni Levin
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Ramya Swamy
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Janet L. Alexander
    Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Geoffrey Nguyen None; Tara Balasubramanian None; Dhruv Shah None; Abel Odolil None; Jamie Palmer None; Moran Levin None; Ramya Swamy None; Janet Alexander None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 1067 – A0162. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Geoffrey Nguyen, Tara H. Balasubramanian, Dhruv M. Shah, Abel S. Odolil, Jamie Palmer, Moran Roni Levin, Ramya Swamy, Janet L. Alexander; Quality Assessment of Polymer Materials for Human Model Eye Development. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):1067 – A0162.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Current commercially available training eye models are expensive while low-cost models have difficulty replicating the feel of real human tissues. In this study, we aim to develop an affordable and accurate model eye that can be used to improve microsurgical skills assessments. We created model eyes using six different polymer materials to determine which materials were the most appropriate in simulating real human sclera and extraocular muscle (EOM).

Methods : Five 3-D printed polymers (FlexFill, PolyFlex, PCTPE, Soft PLA, NinjaFlex) and one silicone material were systematically tested by seventeen board certified ophthalmologists and five PGY-4 ophthalmology residents. Participants performed scleral passes through each material’s “sclera” and “EOM” components of their respective eye models. They then completed a questionnaire asking to rank each polymer material from 1-6 (1 = best in the group, 6 = worst in the group) to identify which would be most suitable for simulation training. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was conducted to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the distribution of ranks between the polymer materials.

Results : The distribution of ranks for Silicone material’s "sclera" and "EOM" components were statistically significantly higher than the distribution of ranks for all other tested polymer materials (all p < 0.05). Participants agreed that it effectively simulated real human sclera and EOM.

Conclusions : Silicone model eyes have substantial educational value for incorporation into a microsurgical training curriculum. It provides a low-cost teaching tool that allows for independent practice of microsurgical techniques.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

 

Figure 1. The sclera for the model eyes was a 23 mm sphere for the 3D printed polymers and 15 mm sphere for the silicone material (A). Extraocular muscle was a 0.6 mm x 8 mm x 20 mm rectangle for both the 3D printed polymers and silicone material (B). All instruments and supplies were provided with the model eyes (C). Each material’s model eye set was labeled with a letter (A, B, C, D, E, or F) to blind participants (D).

Figure 1. The sclera for the model eyes was a 23 mm sphere for the 3D printed polymers and 15 mm sphere for the silicone material (A). Extraocular muscle was a 0.6 mm x 8 mm x 20 mm rectangle for both the 3D printed polymers and silicone material (B). All instruments and supplies were provided with the model eyes (C). Each material’s model eye set was labeled with a letter (A, B, C, D, E, or F) to blind participants (D).

 

Table 1. P-values for the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Comparison of “Sclera” and “Extraocular Muscle” Rank Distributions Between Polymer Materials. For p-values less than 0.05, the distribution of ranks of material 2 were significantly higher than material 1 for the respective "sclera" and “EOM” material ranks.

Table 1. P-values for the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. Comparison of “Sclera” and “Extraocular Muscle” Rank Distributions Between Polymer Materials. For p-values less than 0.05, the distribution of ranks of material 2 were significantly higher than material 1 for the respective "sclera" and “EOM” material ranks.

×
×

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.

×