ArticleThe Journal of craniofacial surgery
Two 11-Years Periods Statistics and Trends of Enucleation and Evisceration.
Article in The Journal of craniofacial surgery. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Etiologies in Evisceration as Rare Cases: A 10-Year Single-Center Experience in the East Mediterranean Region of Türkiye.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Factors Affecting Ocular Prosthetic Use Amongst Anophthalmic Patients: A Retrospective Review with Patient Interviews.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- A Case Series of Eye Removal Surgeries: Five Years of Experience at a Tertiary Eye Care Centre in Malaysia.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe indications for evisceration and enucleation are still evolving and controversial. The study aims to describe trends of enucleation versus evisceration in one center.
methodsIn period 1998-2019 were 353 patients were included in the study. Statistical results and Chi-square test for pair-wise comparisons for the statistical significance in comparing two subgroups (years periods 1998-2008 and 2009-2019) per category have been evaluated.
resultsThe enucleation was performed in 306 patients, and the evisceration was performed in 47 patients. In 221 patients with the tumor exclusively enucleation was indicated. For the operation technique, the authors got a chi-square value of 0.027, and the associated P value is at 0.8695, then the number of evisceration and enucleation in subgroups have not confirmed independency. For the tumor presence, the authors got a chi-square value of 5.4, and the associated P value is at 0.02, then the number of validated/nonvalidated tumor presence in subgroups confirmed independency.
conclusionsThe performed enucleations had 98% cases uveal melanoma, 1% of cases of another type of malignancy (lymphoma non-Hodgkin type), and 1% cases with benign tumor. Enucleation is also today most frequently due to malignant intraocular tumors, whereas evisceration if most frequently for the phthisis eye after a trauma or a previous intraocular surgery. In our study in 22 years interval also in the second period, there was an increased trend of enucleation due to intraocular malignancy. It can have many reasons, especially, that patients are sent to oncology centers late in the advanced stage of tumor.
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.