Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29758028›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

A surgical simulator for peeling the inner limiting membrane during wet conditions.

Seiji Omata, Yusei Someya, Shyn'ya Adachi, Taisuke Masuda, Takeshi Hayakawa, Kanako Harada, Mamoru Mitsuishi, Kiyohito Totsuka, Fumiyuki Araki, Muneyuki Takao and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Evaluation of (Shared) Autonomy in Robot-Assisted Vitreoretinal Surgery Using a Surgical Model.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

12 authors.

Seiji OmataDepartment of Micro-Nano Mechanical Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-0985-8567
Yusei SomeyaDepartment of Micro-Nano Mechanical Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Shyn'ya AdachiDepartment of Micro-Nano Mechanical Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Taisuke MasudaDepartment of Micro-Nano Mechanical Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.
Takeshi HayakawaDepartment of Precision Mechanics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Chuo University, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Kanako HaradaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Mamoru MitsuishiDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Kiyohito TotsukaDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Fumiyuki ArakiDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Muneyuki TakaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Makoto AiharaDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Fumihito AraiDepartment of Micro-Nano Mechanical Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study was performed to establish a novel ocular surgery simulator for training in peeling of the inner limited membrane (ILM). This simulator included a next-generation artificial ILM with mechanical properties similar to the natural ILM that could be peeled underwater in the same manner as in actual surgery. An artificial eye consisting of a fundus and eyeball parts was fabricated. The artificial eye was installed in the eye surgery simulator. The fundus part was mounted in the eyeball, which consisted of an artificial sclera, retina, and ILM. To measure the thickness of the fabricated ILM on the artificial retina, we calculated the distance of the step height as the thickness of the artificial ILM. Two experienced ophthalmologists then assessed the fabricated ILM by sensory evaluation. The minimum thickness of the artificial ILM was 1.9 ± 0.3 μm (n = 3). We were able to perform the peeling task with the ILM in water. Based on the sensory evaluation, an ILM with a minimum thickness and 1000 degrees of polymerization was suitable for training. We installed the eye model on an ocular surgery simulator, which allowed for the performance of a sequence of operations similar to ILM peeling. In conclusion, we developed a novel ocular surgery simulator for ILM peeling. The artificial ILM was peeled underwater in the same manner as in an actual operation.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationFundus OculiMembranes, ArtificialOphthalmologic Surgical ProceduresEpiretinal MembraneHumansRetinal PerforationsWaterMembranes, ArtificialWater

Identifiers

PMID29758028
PMCPMC5951573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.