ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2019
Assessment of Postural Compliance After Pneumatic Retinopexy.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2019. 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.
- Gas-Lesion Contact and Postural Compliance After Vitrectomy With Tamponade: A Continuous Monitoring and 3D Quantitative Analysis.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Involving Patients in Developing a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Retinal Detachment.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Clinical characteristics of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in patients over 90 years in a tertiary center in Germany: 90-TOSG report 2.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Observational
- Modification of the pneumatic retinopexy for the treatment of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with multiple-quadrant retinal breaks.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Quantifying Head Position Following Vitrectomy Using a 3-Dimensional Position Sensor Embedded in a Novel Ophthalmic Shield: A Pilot Study.Retinal cases & brief reports · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe describe the functioning of a novel device, aimed to assess patient head position after a pneumatic retinopexy.
methodsWe enrolled patients with the clinical diagnosis of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. All patients were asked to wear a specially designed headband with a monitoring device composed of an accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer, powered by a 3.7V lithium battery. Every 200 ms, the device measured neck flexion and extension, left and right rotation, and left and right flexion. Patients were asked to come back the next morning for follow-up and headband retrieving.
resultsThe device was worn an average of 19.17 ± 2.1 hours and performed a mean number of 57,670 ± 8663 measurements without power failures or program errors. An acceptable head position was kept for a mean of 3.33 ± 1.8 hours. The hardest axis to maintain was the right and left flexion of the neck (5.5 ± 2.54 hours of acceptable positioning).
conclusionReal-time monitoring of patient head position after a vitreoretinal procedure is feasible. Maintaining a fixed head position for more than 5 consecutive hours is difficult to achieve and physicians should consider this difficulty when planning treatment. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: In addition to a significant improvement to the basic design of similar devices, our device allows for assessment of patient adherence to postoperative instructions objectively for the first time to our knowledge. This information could be used in the future to elaborate more detailed position nomograms to improve outcomes.
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.