Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24013579›Full record

Observational studyGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2014

The price for reduced light toxicity: Do endoilluminator spectral filters decrease color contrast during Brilliant Blue G-assisted chromovitrectomy?

Paul B Henrich, Christophe Valmaggia, Corina Lang, Philippe C Cattin

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Vitrectomy in high myopia: a narrative review.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2017
    Review
  4. An evaluation of two heavier-than-water internal limiting membrane-specific dyes during macular hole surgery.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2016
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Paul B HenrichDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland, Paul.Henrich@usb.ch.
Christophe Valmaggia
Corina Lang
Philippe C Cattin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVitreoretinal surgeons have been slow to adopt the use of spectral filters for endoillumination to reduce retinal light toxicity. This study shows that spectral filters can be used without a loss in color contrast during brilliant blue G chromovitrectomy.

methodsTo evaluate the influence of intra operative spectral light filters on perceivable contrast during Brilliant Blue G chromovitrectomy, a prospective, observational clinical study was carried out on 59 consecutive Brilliant Blue G chromovitrectomy interventions in 59 patients admitted for macular holes, macular pucker or vitreomacular traction syndromes. Subsequent to peeling of the internal limiting membrane, six different illumination modes were enabled consecutively: mercury vapor, mercury vapor/xenon, and xenon followed by xenon combined with an amber, green or yellow spectral filter. Main outcome measure was the chromaticity spread between stained internal limiting membrane and unstained retina as a measure for the color contrast perceived by the human eye.

resultsMean chromaticity scores were similar for all light sources: mercury vapor 7.97, mercury vapor/xenon 7.96 (p = 0.96), and xenon 7.41 (p = 0.55). Compared to xenon, the additional use of endoillumination spectral filters did not change contrast recognizability: Chromaticity scores were 9.38 for the amber filter (p = 0.13), 6.63 for the green and 7.02 for the yellow filter (p = 0.37 and 0.64, respectively). When comparing the different filters head-to-head, the amber filter was superior to the green filter (p = 0.03), while the yellow was intermediate and not significantly different from either the amber (p = 0.08) or the green filter (p = 0.51).

conclusionsColor contrast perceptibility during Brilliant Blue G assisted chromovitrectomy is similar with mercury vapor, mercury vapor/xenon or xenon light sources. Spectral filters do not decrease color contrast recognizability. Head-to-head comparison shows a significant advantage for the amber over the green filter with respect to contrast generation, the yellow filter is intermediate. As spectral filters are known to greatly reduce retinal light toxicity, we suggest donor eye studies to validate whether the amber filter should be generally recommended for Brilliant Blue G chromovitrectomy.

Indexed as

Indicators and ReagentsRosaniline DyesVitrectomyAgedAged, 80 and overBasement MembraneContrast SensitivityFemaleFiltrationHumansLightingMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiation InjuriesRetinacoomassie Brilliant BlueIndicators and ReagentsRosaniline Dyes

Identifiers

PMID24013579
PMCPMC3939013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.