ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Efficacy and safety of optic nerve sheath fenestration in patients with raised intracranial pressure.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of surgical treatments of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH).Neurosurgical review · 2021Pooled it
- Radiologically measured optic nerve sheath diameter as a predictor of mortality and functional outcomes in stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Optic nerve sheath fenestration: A second lease at sight.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Optic nerve sheath fenestration for visual impairment in cerebral venous diseases.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension from Benign to Fulminant: Diagnostic and Management Issues.Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology · 2022Article
- Unilateral Optic Nerve Sheath Fenestration in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A 6-Month Follow-Up Study on Visual Outcome and Prognostic Markers.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Optic Nerve Sheath Fenestration With a Multi-Arm Continuum Robot.IEEE robotics and automation letters · 2020Article
- Optic nerve sheath fenestration for salvaging acutely threatened vision in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension - A two-year completed follow up.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of Optic Nerve Sheath Fenestration (ONSF) in patients with raised intracranial pressure (ICP).
methodsThis Quasi Experimental Study was conducted at Armed Forces Institute of Ophthalmology, Rawalpindi from July 2013 to July 2015. Thirty one eyes of 18 patients who underwent ONSF for raised ICP were followed up for one year to ascertain efficacy and safety of ONSF procedure.
resultsThirteen (72.22%) patients underwent ONSF bilaterally, while five (27.78%) underwent unilateral ONSF. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved in 24 (77.4%), remained stable in four (12.9%) and deteriorated in three (9.7%) patients. Papilledema improved in 27 (87.1%) while remained stable in four (12.9%) according to Frisénscale of Papilledema. Change in BCVA and papilledema from pre-operative values was statistically significant (p<0.001). There was significant negative correlation (r= -0.434, p=.017) between duration of symptoms before presentation and improvement in BCVA. Common complications were a tonic pupil, subconjunctival haemorrhage, chemosis, weakness of recti and diplopia.
conclusionONSF is an effective procedure with statistically significant improvement in BCVA and reduction in severity of papilledema.
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.