| Title |
Intraocular pressure increases after complex simulated surgical procedures in residents: an experimental study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6297-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jesús Vera, Carolina Diaz-Piedra, Raimundo Jiménez, Jose M. Sanchez-Carrion, Leandro L. Di Stasi |
| Abstract |
Surgeons' overload is one of the main causes of medical errors that might compromise patient safety. Due to the drawbacks of current options to monitor surgeons' load, new, sensitive, and objective indices of task (over)load need to be considered and tested. In non-health-care scenarios, intraocular pressure (IOP) has been proved to be an unbiased physiological index, sensitive to task complexity (one of the main variables related to overload), and time on task. In the present study, we assessed the effects of demanding and complex simulated surgical procedures on surgical and medical residents' IOP. Thirty-four surgical and medical residents and healthcare professionals took part in this study (the experimental group, N = 17, and the control group, N = 17, were matched for sex and age). The experimental group performed two simulated bronchoscopy procedures that differ in their levels of complexity. The control group mimicked the same hand-eye movements and posture of the experimental group to help control for the potential effects of time on task and re-measurement on IOP. We measured IOP before and after each procedure, surgical performance during procedures, and perceived task complexity. IOP increased as consequence of performing the most complex procedure only in the experimental group. Consistently, residents performed worse and reported higher perceived task complexity for the more complex procedure. Our data show, for the first time, that IOP is sensitive to residents' task load, and it could be used as a new index to easily and rapidly assess task (over)load in healthcare scenarios. An arousal-based explanation is given to describe IOP variations due to task complexity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Engineering | 4 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2019.
All research outputs
#13,620,235
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,902
of 6,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,847
of 327,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#52
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.