ArticleBMC ophthalmology2018
Comparing safety and efficiency of two closed-chamber techniques for iridodialysis repair - a retrospective clinical study.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Iridodialysis.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2025Article
- Visual outcome after monocular implantation of extended depth of focus intraocular lens in a patient with iridodialysis: a case report and literature review.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Review
- Reversed scleral tunnel technique for repair of iridodialysis after blunt force trauma: a retrospective clinical study.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Results of a novel surgical technique for iridodialysis repair using an iris retractor segment.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of two closed-chamber techniques for repairing iridodialysis.
methodsSeventy five patients with iridodialysis undergoing surgery from February 2008 to October 2017 were included in this study. Patients were divided into two Groups, Group A (32 eyes) and Group B (35 eyes), with Group A using a 26-gauge hypodermic needle guided 10-0 nylon suture, and Group B using a double-armed polypropylene suture. Before operation and 1, 3, and 6 months after the operation, pupil shape, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), the rate of endothelial cell loss, and intra- and postoperative complications were compared between two Groups during the follow-up period.
resultsIridodialysis was repaired with pupil shape restored in all cases. IOP was normalized in all eyes except 2 eyes (6.3%) in Group A and 3 eyes (8.6%) in Group B. Postoperative rate of endothelial cell loss was not significantly different between two Groups (P > 0.05). The percentage of complicated cataract was not significantly different in Group A (2 eyes, 6.3%) compared to Group B (2 eyes, 5.7%) (χ2 = 0.009, P = 0.658).
conclusionsBoth techniques for repairing iridodialysis not only were safe but also effective in improving visual function and cosmetic recovery. However, double-armed polypropylene suture might be less invasive than 26-gauge hypodermic needle guided suture.
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.