ArticleBMC ophthalmology2018
Comparison of the MyoRing implantation depth by mechanical dissection using PocketMaker microkeratome versus Melles hook via AS-OCT.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2018. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intracorneal ring segment implantation for eyes with keratoconus and corneas thinner than 400 microns.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Article
- Dynamic changes in tear film parameters after upper eyelid blepharoplasty measured with anterior segment optical coherence tomography.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Article
- Combined Corneal Cross-Linking and Myoring Implantation in Advanced Keratoconus: Femtosecond Laser versus Manual Dissection.Journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- [Long-term experiences with corneal crosslinking in patients with progressive keratoconus at the University Eye Hospital in Tübingen, Germany].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis paper seeks to evaluate the depth and outcomes of MyoRing implantation using two mechanical dissection procedures including: PocketMaker microkeratome in opposition to the Melles hook method.
methodsThis retrospective study was carried out on 39 eyes of 38 keratoconus patients (28 male and 10 female) with the mean age of [Formula: see text] years and had undergone MyoRing implantation by the two mentioned methods. The MyoRing was inserted into the corneal pocket which was made manually in 18 eyes (Melles hook group) or with PocketMaker microkeratome in 21 eyes (PocketMaker group). The mean follow up time was [Formula: see text] months with pre-operative and post-operative ophthalmic examination including uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), keratometry readings and central corneal thickness measurement. AS-OCT (Casia, SS-1000, Tomey, Nagoya, Japan) imaging was used to measure MyoRing insertion depth, exactly.
resultsPre-operative and post-operative UCVA (LogMAR) mean change for the PocketMaker and Melles hook groups were recorded at 0.75 ± 0.32 and 0.78 ± 0.33, respectively. Similarly, BCVA (LogMAR) mean change were 0.27 ± 0.22 and 0.23 ± 0.22. Mean keratometry (Kmean) change were 6.06 ± 4.18 and 6.56 ± 3.55 respectively. UCVA change (P = 0.767), BCVA change (P = 0.77) and Kmean change (P = 0.693) showed that there was no statistically significant difference between both groups for any parameter. Depth measurements achieved from AS-OCT images showed that there was no statistically significant difference in pocket depth between two methods of MyoRing implantation (P = 0.413).
conclusionsThe results of Myoring implantation outcomes using mechanical dissection via PocketMaker microkeratome as against Melles hook are comparable.
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.