Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31598515›Full record

ArticleMedical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal2019

Visual Prognosis after Explantation of a Corneal Shape-Changing Hydrogel Inlay in Presbyopic Eyes.

Majid Moshirfar, Benjamin Buckner, David B Rosen, Madeline B Heiland, Yasmyne C Ronquillo, David F Skanchy, Harry Y Liu, Tim Melton, Liliana Werner, Phillip C Jr Hoopes

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

10 authors.

Majid MoshirfarJohn A. Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Benjamin BucknerHoopes Durrie Rivera Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA.
David B RosenCollege of Medicine-Phoenix, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Madeline B HeilandCollege of Medicine-Phoenix, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Yasmyne C RonquilloHoopes Durrie Rivera Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA.
David F SkanchyDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, W.K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Harry Y LiuHealth Science Center, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA.
Tim MeltonHoopes Durrie Rivera Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA.
Liliana WernerJohn A. Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Phillip C Jr HoopesJohn A. Moran Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this case series is to report visual outcomes in patients who underwent explantation of the Raindrop® hydrogel corneal inlay. Retrospective chart review comprising four cases of explantation of the Raindrop® corneal shape-changing hydrogel inlay: pre-implantation, pre-explantation, and post-explantation values for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were measured; keratometric and tomographic data were collected using the Pentacam system (Oculus, Inc). Three eyes were explanted for progressive haze after implantation that persisted even after removal; one eye was explanted due to poor visual acuity with no haze formation. All patients experienced decreased unaided and corrected distance visual acuity. Persistent increase in corneal thickness and mean keratometry was noted post-explantation. All four patients regained their original near visual acuities, but one patient had persistent one-line loss in CDVA. There are long lasting tomographic corneal changes following Raindrop inlay explantation. In addition, persistent increased corneal thickness could be related to semi-permanent changes in corneal structure and may account for residual haze experienced by patients. After explantation, patients may not return to baseline CDVA.

Indexed as

Corrected Distance Visual AcuityExplantationPresbyopiaRaindrop Corneal InlayVisual Prognosis

Identifiers

PMID31598515
PMCPMC6778472

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.