ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
Application of a prechop technique using a reverse chopper in small pupil cataract surgery.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of pre-chop technique using a reverse chopper and classic stop-and-chop technique in the treatment of high myopia associated with nuclear cataract.BMC surgery · 2022Trial
- Comparison of Phacoemulsification and Aspiration Parameters in Cataract Surgery: Metal Tip vs. Hybrid Tip.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of the reverse chopper-assisted prechop and phaco-chop nucleotomy techniques during phacoemulsification for cataracts with grade III nuclei: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of translational medicine · 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
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo analyze the value of a prechop technique for splitting the nucleus of the lens using a reverse chopper in small-pupil cataract surgeries. A prospective case-control study. Thirty-four cataract patients (34 eyes) who were treated in our center from March 2019 to December 2019 were enrolled and then divided into two groups: small pupil group (18 patients; 18 eyes) and normal pupil group (16 patients; 16 eyes).
methodsThe prechop technique was applied in both groups, and the patients were followed up for three months. The best-corrected visual acuity (BVCA), surgical complications, corneal endothelial cell loss, pupil function, operative time, and cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) were compared between these two groups, and the safety of the nucleus-chopping technique was evaluated. Data were analyzed using the SPSS 23.0 software packages. BVCA, surgical complications, rate of corneal endothelial cell loss, pupil function, operative time, and CDE.
resultsThe surgery was smooth in all cases. The operative time, intraoperative ultrasound energy consumption, BVCA, and surgical complications indicated no significant difference between the two groups (all P>0.05). In the small pupil group, BVCA was significantly improved after surgery and achieved its optimal value three months after surgery (χ
conclusionsThe prechop technique using a reverse chopper in small-pupil cataract surgery occupies a similar operative time, cumulative energy consumption during operation, BVCA, pupil morphology, and rate of corneal endothelial cell loss, comparing with those in normal-pupil cataract surgery. To such a degree, it is a safe, high-efficiency, a simple and easy-to-operate nucleus-chopping technique that can be used in small-pupil cataract surgery.
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.