PURPOSE: To evaluate ophthalmology trainee's experience with BIONIKO 3D-printed eye model in internal limiting membrane peeling. METHODS: Ophthalmology trainees were randomly assigned to two groups, BIONIKO-first and Eyesi-first, performing internal limiting membrane peels on both models. Surgical performance was assessed via Eyesi score output, while an anonymous survey assessed model effectiveness. RESULTS: Thirty-nine trainees participated (20 BIONIKO-first, 19 Eyesi-first). The BIONIKO-first group had a higher mean Eyesi score (50.63 ± 31.68 vs. 37.53 ± 30.30, P = 0.497). The Eyesi-first group achieved a higher internal limiting membrane peeling rate inside the macula (95.05% ± 4.58 vs. 92.66% ± 10.75, P = 0.039). Completion time and forceps use were comparable. The BIONIKO-first group had fewer total spotted hemorrhages (2.4 ± 2.1 vs. 4.4 ± 3.6, P = 0.035), while macular and retinal injuries were similar.Subgroup analysis by training level showed that in the junior group, BIONIKO-first resulted in fewer hemorrhages ( P = 0.012), while Eyesi-first had higher internal limiting membrane peeling rate inside the macula ( P = 0.002). Among seniors, BIONIKO-first demonstrated a statistically lower area of macular injury (0.02 mm 2 ± 0.05 vs. 0.07 mm 2 ± 0.12, P = 0.020).Survey results favored BIONIKO for tactile feedback ( P = 0.002) and surgical realism ( P < 0.001), while Eyesi was preferred for procedural feedback ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: BIONIKO and Eyesi models offer complementary advantages. A hybrid approach may optimize skill acquisition and patient safety in vitreoretinal surgery training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
AbouKasm et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: