Perceptions and use of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in the orbit

ABSTRACT

Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) plays a prominent role in certain surgical disciplines. We investigated the current perceptions and use of this technology for orbital surgery.

An online survey was emailed to members of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Canadian Society of Oculoplastic Surgery, and British Oculoplastic Surgery Society. Respondents were asked to describe their practice type and seniority, their frequency of orbital surgery, experience, use, and accessibility of CAS, and their opinion on the technology. There were a total of 151 responses across the societies. 105 respondents (69.5%) had been in attending/consultant practice for over 10 years, with over half (54.7%) working in academic/teaching hospitals. The majority (66.7%) had superficial or no experience with CAS. In total, 84.8% of respondents rarely or never use CAS for orbital surgery (n = 128). Posterior orbital surgery (64.2%) and orbital decompression (49.0%) were the two most useful reasons to implement CAS. Longer operating time (58.3%) and cost (54.8%) were the two most selected weaknesses for CAS, whereas improved accuracy in attaining surgical end point(s) (80.8%) and patient safety (63.6%) were the principal advantages. Type of practice was significantly associated with CAS availability/accessibility (p < 0.05). Proportion of orbital surgery performed in practice was significantly associated with both CAS experience and use (p < 0.05).

Our study confirms an expected variation in the perception and use of CAS for orbital surgery. Demonstrated patient benefit and integration of refined and cost-effective CAS systems into operating room environments may influence its future role.

KEYWORDS:

• Computer-assisted surgery
• image-guided surgery
• orbit
• orbital surgery
• surgical navigation

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/01676830.2018.1490440.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.