ArticleInternational ophthalmology2020
One-port vs. three-port diagnostic vitrectomy for posterior segment diseases of unknown origin.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biomarkers of Neurodegeneration and Precision Therapy in Retinal Disease.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the safety and the effectiveness of one-port vs. three-port diagnostic vitrectomy in undiagnosed cases of posterior segment inflammation.
methodsWe retrospectively collected data from 80 consecutive diagnostic vitrectomies performed using a one-port (n = 40) or a three-port approach (n = 40). Cases of suspected postoperative endophthalmitis were not included in the study. Several variables were compared among groups, including length of surgery, postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), diagnostic success and surgical complications.
resultsThe mean duration of surgery was shorter in the one-port group when compared to the three-port group (15 ± 8 min vs. 49 ± 30; p = 0.0001). The patients were observed for a mean follow-up of 19 months (range 1-84). In the one-port group, the mean BCVA improved from 1.31 ± 0.96 to 0.57 ± 0.59 logarithm of minimum resolution (LogMAR) (p = 0.0009). In the three-port group, BCVA improved from 0.98 ± 0.76 to 0.51 ± 0.76 LogMAR (p = 0.0005). The difference in mean postoperative BCVA between groups was not significative at the last follow-up. One-port vitrectomy yields to a final diagnosis in 80% of the cases, and three-port vitrectomy in 48%. Most of the one-port vitrectomies were carried out under topical anesthesia. After surgery, in both groups three eyes developed a retinal detachment.
conclusionsIn this pilot study, the one-port diagnostic vitrectomy has proven to be as effective and safe as the three-port approach, allowing a reduction in surgical times. One-port diagnostic vitrectomy might be considered as the first option for those cases where more complex surgical procedures are not needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32647949What 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.