Settings and Design:This study documents a survey of final-year ophthalmology postgraduates on the subject of their surgical training and their future plans after residency.Purpose:This survey aimed to answer the question, What is the present status of surgical training in ophthalmic training centers? by obtaining information from students about (1) various methods used in surgical training (2) numbers and types of surgeries performed by them in the training centers (3) their plans after residency.Materials and Methods:A questionnaire containing 21 questions was distributed to 155 students attending an intensive 4-day teaching program. The questions related to orientation training, wet lab training, facilities for training, free surgical camps and detailed information about numbers and types of surgeries observed and performed. Completed questionnaires were collected, and responses analyzed.Results:One hundred and seven completed responses were analyzed. The majority had not received formal orientation training. More than half had undergone wet lab training. Most residents performed their first ophthalmic surgery during the 1st year of residency and went to the operation theatre multiple times a week. Most of the students planned to undergo further training after residency. More than half of the students found their surgical training to be fair or satisfactory.Conclusions:The number and frequency of ophthalmic surgeries done by residents appear satisfactory, but further efforts from trainers on enhancing the quality and range of surgical training would benefit students and improve their satisfaction.

Background and Aims:This study documents a survey of final-year ophthalmology postgraduate students on the subject of their residency training. A similar survey conducted 7 years ago published in IJO had concluded that the residency program was not up to expectations in many centers. Our study aimed to see if ophthalmology training and student perceptions differed since then.Materials and Methods:For our study, we added a few questions to the same questionnaire used in the article “which is the best method to learn ophthalmology? Resident doctors’ perspective of ophthalmology training” published in IJO, Vol. 56 (5).Results:Forty-nine students (62.02%) returned completed forms. Most students desired an orientation program on entering residency, and wished to undergo diagnostic training initially. Case-presentation with demonstration and Wet-lab learning were most preferred. There was a big difference between the number of surgeries students actually performed and the number they felt would have been ideal.Conclusion:On the whole, the students still felt the need for improved training across all aspects of ophthalmology.

Purpose:The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of intracameral mydriatic solution, as compared to preoperative topical mydriatics, in patients undergoing manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) under peribulbar anesthesia. To assess the sustainability of intracameral mydriasis in MSICS by monitoring pupil size at specific junctures during the surgery.Methods:This trial recruited 127 patients, who underwent MSICS under peribulbar block. Mydriasis in topical group was achieved with preoperative topical dilating drops while patients in intracameral group were taken up for surgery without dilation, and mydriasis was achieved intraoperatively with intracameral solution. Pupil sizes were measured serially, at six different junctures during surgery. Time duration of surgery, any intraoperative complications and first postoperative day visual acuity, corneal edema score, and anterior chamber inflammation score were noted in all patients.Results:Mean pupil size just before peribulbar block was 7.3 mm in topical group and 3.3 mm in intracameral group (P < 0.001). Mean pupil size in intracameral group increased to 7.3 mm 30 s after injecting intracameral dilating solution. Mean pupil size in both groups progressively reduced, reaching 5.5 mm (topical group) and 6.2 mm (intracameral group) just before intraocular lens implantation (P = 0.001), and measured 5.1 mm and 5.5 mm, respectively, at the end of surgery (P = 0.048). On first postoperative day, there was no significant difference in distribution of corneal edema scores, AC inflammation scores, and in median logMAR visual acuity between the two groups.Conclusions:MSICS can be performed effectively and safely utilizing intracameral mydriatic solution, without the use of preoperative dilating drops.Trial registration:CTRI/2016/06/007036