ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2020
Effects of Combinations of Ophthalmic Viscosurgical Devices and Suction Flow Rates on the Corneal Endothelial Cell Damage Incurred during Phacoemulsification.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative anatomical outcomes of high-flow vs. low-flow phacoemulsification cataract surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Intracameral pressure during capsulorhexis in cataract surgery using cohesive versus dispersive ophthalmic viscosurgical devices: a randomised trial.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Trial
- Effects on anterior chamber stability during the capsulorhexis using utrata forceps vs. a bent 26G cannula.International ophthalmology · 2026Trial
- Comparative analysis of anterior chamber stability with a cohesive ophthalmic viscosurgical device versus the soft-shell technique.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Trial
- A Shape Memory Polymeric Shield for Protecting Corneal Endothelium During Phacoemulsification.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Intraocular pressure before and after capsulorhexis using two viscoelastic substances and two surgical approaches in enucleated porcine eyes.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Cumulative Dissipated Energy (CDE) in Three Phaco-Fragmentation Techniques for Dense Cataract Removal.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the effects of different ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs) and suction flow rates during phacoemulsification on the amount of ultrasound power used and damage to the corneal endothelium. In total, 48 eyes of 24 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and intraocular lens insertion with different OVD settings in the left and right eye between February and August 2018 were examined retrospectively from medical records. Each of the following types of OVDs was used in either the right or left eye of each patient: a viscoadaptive OVD (V group) or a combination of dispersive and cohesive OVDs (soft-shell technique; S group). There was no significant difference in the lens nucleus hardness between the two groups. A 2.4 mm transconjunctival scleral incision was made, and phacoemulsification was performed by the same surgeon. The cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) and ultrasound time intraoperatively were compared between the two groups. The CDE was significantly larger in the V group (9.9 ± 4.6) than the S group (6.4 ± 3.0;
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.