Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Everything is ok on YouTube! Quality assessment of YouTube videos on the topic of phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Usage of YouTube as an educational tool is gaining attention in academic research. To date, there has been no study on the content and quality of eye surgery videos on YouTube. The aim of this study was to analyze YouTube videos on phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil.

Methods

We searched for the phrases “small pupil cataract surgery,” “small pupil phacoemulsification,” “small pupil cataract surgery complications,” and “small pupil phacoemulsification complications” in January 2015. Each resulting video was evaluated by all authors, and Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated to measure agreement. Videos were classified according to pupil size (small/very small) in the beginning of the surgery, and whether pupillary diameter was large enough to continue surgery safely after pupillary dilation by the surgeon in the video (safe/not safe). Methods of dilatation were also analyzed. Any stated ocular comorbidity or surgical complications were noted.

Results

A total of 96 videos were reviewed. No mechanical intervention for pupillary dilatation was performed in 46 videos. Fifty-eight operated eyes had no stated ocular comorbidity. Ninety-five operations ended successfully without major complication. There was fair agreement between the evaluators regarding pupil sizes (Kα = 0.670) but poor agreement regarding safety (Kα = 0.337).

Conclusions

YouTube videos on small pupil phacoemulsification have low complication rates when compared to the literature, although no reliable mechanical dilatation methods are used in almost half of these videos. Until YouTube’s place in e-learning becomes clearer, we suggest that viewers be cautious regarding small pupil phacoemulsification videos on YouTube.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Avcı K, Çelikden SG, Eren S, Aydenizöz D (2015) Assessment of medical students’ attitudes on social media use in medicine: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ 15:18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. McGowan BS, Wasko M, Vartabedian BS, Miller RS, Freiherr DD, Abdolrasulnia M (2012) Understanding the factors that influence the adoption and meaningful use of social media by physicians to share medical information. J Med Internet Res 14:e117

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Verhage J (2015) A bank of America analysis says YouTube is worth more than 85 percent of companies in the S&P 500. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-27/a-bank-of-america-analysis-says-YouTube-is-worth-more-than-85-percent-of-companies-in-the-s-p-500. Accessed 13 Mar 2016

  4. Raikos A, Waidyasekara P (2014) How useful is YouTube in learning heart anatomy? Anat Sci Educ 7:12–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rössler B, Lahner D, Schebesta K, Chiari A, Plöchl W (2012) Medical information on the Internet: quality assessment of lumbar puncture and neuraxial block techniques on YouTube. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 114:655–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fischer J, Geurts J, Valderrabano V, Hügle T (2013) Educational quality of YouTube videos on knee arthrocentesis. J Clin Rheumatol 19:373–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guthrie G, Davies RM, Fleming CK, Browning AC (2014) YouTube as a source of information about retinitis pigmentosa. Eye (Lond) 28:499–500

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lundström M, Goh PP, Henry Y, Salowi MA, Barry P, Manning S et al (2015) The changing pattern of cataract surgery indications: a 5-year study of 2 cataract surgery databases. Ophthalmology 122:31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Masket S (2000) Cataract surgery complicated by the miotic pupil. In: Buratto L, Osher RH, Masket S (eds) Cataract surgery in complicated cases. SLACK Inc, Thorofare, pp 132–135

    Google Scholar 

  10. Guzek JP, Holm M, Cotter JB, Cameron JA, Rademaker WJ, Wissinger DH et al (1987) Risk factors for intraoperative complications in 1000 extracapsular cataract cases. Ophthalmology 94:461–466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Akman A, Yilmaz G, Oto S, Akova YA (2004) Comparison of various pupil dilatation methods for phacoemulsification in eyes with a small pupil secondary to pseudoexfoliation. Ophthalmology 111:1693–1698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Muhtaseb M, Kalhoro A, Ionides A (2004) A system for preoperative stratification of cataract patients according to risk of intraoperative complications: a prospective analysis of 1441 cases. Br J Ophthalmol 88:1242–1246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen M, LaMattina KC, Patrianakos T, Dwarakanathan S (2014) Complication rate of posterior capsule rupture with vitreous loss during phacoemulsification at a Hawaiian cataract surgical center: a clinical audit. Clin Ophthalmol (Auckland, NZ) 8:375–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hashemi H, Seyedian MA, Mohammadpour M (2015) Small pupil and cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 26:3–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ericsson KA (2014) Expertise. Curr Biol 24:R508–R510

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Svenson O (1981) Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychol 47:143–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolpe N, Wolpert DM, Rowe JB (2014) Seeing what you want to see: priors for one’s own actions represent exaggerated expectations of success. Front Behav Neurosci 8:232

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Linn BS, Zeppa R (1985) Student attitudes about medical care and choice of a career in surgery. Ann Surg 202:600–666

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fanelli D (2010) Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States data. PLoS ONE 5(4):e10271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoyt DB, Shackford SR, Fridland PH, Mackersie RC, Hansbrough JF, Wachtel TL et al (1988) Video recording trauma resuscitations: an effective teaching technique. J Trauma 28:435–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Biruni University, Besyol Mh. Eski Londra Asf. No:10, Florya, Istanbul, Turkey

    Aslan Aykut & Yeliz Palancıglu

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Bolu State Hospital, Sağlık Mah. Şehit Kani Caddesi Merkez, Bolu, Turkey

    Amber Senel Kukner

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Pendik State Hospital, Dr.Orhan Maltepe Cad. No:17, 34890, Istanbul, Turkey

    Bugra Karasu

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, Medical Park Hospital, E-5 Karayolu, Kültür Sok No:1, 34180, Bahçelievler, Istanbul, Turkey

    Fatih Atmaca

  5. Department of Medical Education, Biruni University, 10. Yıl Caddesi Protokol Yolu No:45, 34010, Topkapı, Istanbul, Turkey

    Tumay Aydogan

Authors
  1. Aslan Aykut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amber Senel Kukner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bugra Karasu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yeliz Palancıglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fatih Atmaca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tumay Aydogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aslan Aykut.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aykut, A., Kukner, A.S., Karasu, B. et al. Everything is ok on YouTube! Quality assessment of YouTube videos on the topic of phacoemulsification in eyes with small pupil. Int Ophthalmol 39, 385–391 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0823-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0823-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation