ArticleEye (London, England)2021
Assessing visible aerosol generation during vitrectomy in the era of Covid-19.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of Droplet Aerosol Generation During Phacoemulsification and Pars Plana Vitrectomy.Cureus · 2026Article
- Risk Assessment of Aerosol Generation During Vitreoretinal Surgery Using High Speed Imaging Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Vitrectomy as an Aerosol-Generating Procedure in the Time of COVID-19: The VAPOR Study.Ophthalmology. Retina · 2021Article
- Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Through the Ocular Route.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Review
- Novel Insights into the Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Through the Ocular Surface and its Detection in Tears and Conjunctival Secretions: A Review.Advances in therapy · 2020Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess visible aerosol generation during simulated vitrectomy surgery.
methodsA model comprising a human cadaveric corneoscleral rim mounted on an artificial anterior chamber was used. Three-port 25 gauge vitrectomy simulated surgery was performed with any visible aerosol production recorded using high-speed 4K camera. The following were assessed: (1) vitrector at maximum cut rate in static and dynamic conditions inside the model, (2) vitrector at air-fluid interface in a physical model, (3) passive fluid-air exchange with a backflush hand piece, (4) valved cannulas under air, and (5) a defective valved cannula under air.
resultsNo visible aerosol or droplets were identified when the vitrector was used within the model. In the physical model, no visible aerosol or droplets were seen when the vitrector was engaged at the air-fluid interface. Droplets were produced from the opening of backflush hand piece during passive fluid-air exchange. No visible aerosol was produced from the intact valved cannulas under air pressure, but droplets were seen at the beginning of fluid-air exchange when the valved cannula was defective.
conclusionsWe found no evidence of visible aerosol generation during simulated vitrectomy surgery with competent valved cannulas. In the physical model, no visible aerosol was generated by the high-speed vitrector despite cutting at the air-fluid interface.
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.