ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020
Surgical outcomes, complications and learning curve of glued intraocular lens of a vitreo retinal fellow in training.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autologous blood-assisted scleral fixation of intraocular lens.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Commentary: Optimizing surgical training.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Scheimpflug imaging for evaluation of intraocular lens position in modified flanged scleral fixated intraocular lens.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate surgical outcomes, complications and learning curve of glued intraocular lens surgery by a vitreoretinal (VR) fellow in training. Methods: Analysis of 50 eyes requiring glued intraocular lens (GIOL) surgery for various indications was done. Both the consultant VR surgeon (Group 1) and VR fellow in training (Group 2) operated 25 eyes each. The primary outcome measures were visual acuity at 3 months, and time taken for completion of surgery. Secondary outcome measures were refractive correction, intraocular pressure and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Results: The uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) improved from log MAR 1.54±0.56 (Snellen 20/693) to 0.45±0.26 (Snellen 20/56) and from 1.64±0.53 (Snellen 20/873) to 0.56±0.45 (Snellen 20/72) in group 1 and 2, respectively. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved from log MAR 0.74±0.61 (Snellen 20/109) to 0.33±0.26 (Snellen 20/42) and from 1±0.68 (Snellen 20/200) to 0.40±0.50 (Snellen 20/50) in group 1 and 2, respectively (P > 0.05). The surgical time was significantly less in group 1 when compared to that of group 2 (64.26 vs 107.16 minutes) P value <0.05). The mean time taken for the initial 10 cases and later 15 cases in group 2 were 131.9 and 91.2 minutes, which was statistically significant. The complication rates in both groups were comparable. Transient hypotony (IOP < 11) was seen in 56% (14/25) of eyes in group 2 and 44% (11/25) in group 1 (P = 0.39). Conclusion: The study results are encouraging for a VR fellow with good short-term visual outcomes and comparable surgical complications. The procedure gives promising results and the learning curve is overcome by a desire to learn and with increasing number of procedures done under supervision.
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.