Trial reportIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Heads-up 3D viewing system in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with proliferative vitreoretinopathy - A prospective randomized trial.
Trial report in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the Randomized Trial Outcomes of 3D Low-Light Intensity-Assisted and Traditional Eyepiece-Assisted Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment.Ophthalmic research · 2025Trial
- Randomized trial comparing the effects of a 3D head-up system and microscope eyepiece-assisted simulated vitrectomy with intraocular illumination on the ocular surface of an operator.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Trial
- Article
- A review of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: past, present and future.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2025Review
- Endoscopic Vitrectomy Combined with 3D Heads-Up Viewing System in Treating Traumatic Ocular Injury.Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Heads-Up Three-Dimensional Viewing Systems in Vitreoretinal Surgery: An Updated Perspective.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Nomogram for predicting non-proliferative vitreoretinopathy probability after vitrectomy in eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Three-Dimensional Heads-Up vs. Standard Operating Microscope for Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Commentary: Three-dimensional heads up display assisted surgery - A leap into the future.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Commentary: An insight into the preferred practice of vitreoretinal specialists of India: Surgical retina.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Vitrectomy without encircling band for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with inferior break utilizing 3D heads up viewing system.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Comparison Between 3D Heads-Up Display System and Standard Operating Microscope in Diabetic Vitrectomy for Tractional Retinal Detachment.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of vitreoretinal surgery in patients with primary and recurrent rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) with proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) on 3 dimensional digitally assisted visualization system (3D-DAVS) and conventional analogue microscope (CAM). Methods: 68 patients with primary (50) and recurrent (18) RRD with PVR > C1 were included. One group underwent surgery on 3D-DAVS while the other on CAM. The parameters studied included detachment rate, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), duration of surgery, mean endo-illumination levels of 23 G (Gauge) micro incision vitrectomy system (MIVS) and microscope and satisfaction of surgeon and observers based on a framed questionnaire. The mean duration of follow up was three months. Results: 68 eyes of 68 patients with median age 52.5 (range 18-68) years were included. 50 had primary RRD and 18 had recurrent RRD. Detachment rate at the end of three months was comparable in both groups of primary (P > 0.99) and recurrent (P = 0.21) RRD. Mean duration of surgery in minutes for 3D DAVS and CAM group was 61.8 (±22.07) and 58.04 (±12.33), respectively, in primary RRD and 37.22 (±10.27) and 36.55 (±5.92), respectively, in recurrent RRD group. Mean endo-illumination in 3D DAVS (14.5%) group was half of that in CAM (34.17%) group. Surgeon and observer satisfaction scores were significantly higher for 3D DAVS group. Conclusion: 3D DAVS is a safe and effective modality or performing VR surgery in RRD with PVR. 3D DAVS allows lower endo-illumination levels provides superior surgeon ergonomics and offers better learning opportunities to the trainees.
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.