ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2016
In vitro mitomycin C absorption and delivery with different sponge materials used in filtering surgery.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term outcomes of Mitomycin-C augmented phaco-trabeculectomy using subconjunctival injections versus soaked sponges: a randomized controlled trial.Eye (London, England) · 2024Trial
- Using a Novel, Subconjunctival, Sustained-Release Mitomycin C Formulation in a Rabbit Model of Filtration Surgery with Gel Stent Implantation.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2024Article
- Results of XEN45 Gel Stent Implantation in the Treatment of Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Using 5, 10 or 20Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- National survey of intraoperative mitomycin C use during trabeculectomy surgery in the UK.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare mitomycin C (MMC) absorption and delivery in different materials used in filtering surgery.
methodsThis is an in vitro study comparing polyvinyl alcohol triangular sponges (TS6, TS8), polyvinyl alcohol fluid wicks (EFW), and absorbable gelatin sponges (AGS3, AGS5), from which five different types of transport units were obtained. Seven pieces of sponge of each transport unit type were obtained as follows: two transverse strips were obtained at 6 and 8 mm from the apex of TS and divided into three equal pieces; 4×4 mm pieces of EFW; 3×3 and 5×5 mm pieces of absorbable gelatin sponges were cut. Filter paper was placed on a precision scale (0.01 mg). The seven sponge pieces of each type were weighed three times consecutively in dry and wet states, the latter after immersion for 15 seconds in 0.2 mg/mL MMC. The difference between the weights of the dry and wet filter paper at the end of each measurement sequence was also calculated and considered as an estimate of the amount of mitomycin delivered.
resultsThe amounts of MMC absorbed by each transport unit were as follows: (mean ± standard deviation) 27.43±5.13 for TS6, 31.91±6.63 for TS8, 15.96±2.23 for EFW, 17.96±2.05 for AGS3, and 33.81±2.05 for AGS5. The amounts of MMC delivered to the filter paper were as follows: 21.70±2.84 for TS6, 23.83±4.03 for TS8, 12.93±1.75 for EFW, 14.69±1.79 for AGS3, and 27.30±1.58 for AGS5.
conclusionPercentage MMC delivered was similar for all materials, but there was a tendency for greater delivery using larger sponges and greater homogeneity in delivery with AGS5. No statistical differences were found in percentage delivered by the different transport materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.