ArticlePloS one2018
Numerical stress analysis of the iris tissue induced by pupil expansion: Comparison of commercial devices.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Structural Layers of the Porcine Iris Exhibit Inherently Different Biomechanical Properties.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- Computational Modeling of Ophthalmic Procedures: Computational Modeling of Ophthalmic Procedures.American journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Changes in Iris Stiffness and Permeability in Primary Angle Closure Glaucoma.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2021Article
- Intraoperative floppy iris syndrome: an updated review of literature.International ophthalmology · 2021Review
- Outcomes of Complex Cataract Surgery in Patients with Primary Open-angle Glaucoma.Journal of current glaucoma practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose(1) To use finite element (FE) modelling to estimate local iris stresses (i.e. internal forces) as a result of mechanical pupil expansion; and to (2) compare such stresses as generated from several commercially available expanders (Iris hooks, APX dilator and Malyugin ring) to determine which design and deployment method are most likely to cause iris damage.
methodsWe used a biofidelic 3-part iris FE model that consisted of the stroma, sphincter and dilator muscles. Our FE model simulated expansion of the pupil from 3 mm to a maximum of 6 mm using the aforementioned pupil expanders, with uniform circular expansion used for baseline comparison. FE-derived stresses, resultant forces and area of final pupil opening were compared across devices for analysis.
resultsOur FE models demonstrated that the APX dilator generated the highest stresses on the sphincter muscles, (max: 6.446 MPa; average: 5.112 MPa), followed by the iris hooks (max: 5.680 MPa; average: 5.219 MPa), and the Malyugin ring (max: 2.144 MPa; average: 1.575 MPa). Uniform expansion generated the lowest stresses (max: 0.435MPa; average: 0.377 MPa). For pupil expansion, the APX dilator required the highest force (41.22 mN), followed by iris hooks (40.82 mN) and the Malyugin ring (18.56 mN).
conclusionOur study predicted that current pupil expanders exert significantly higher amount of stresses and forces than required during pupil expansion. Our work may serve as a guide for the development and design of next-generation pupil expanders.
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.