Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34065508›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Secondary Sutureless Posterior Chamber Lens Implantation with Two Specifically Designed IOLs: Iris Claw Lens versus Sutureless Trans-Scleral Plugs Fixated Lens.

Daniel Seknazi, Donato Colantuono, Rachid Tahiri, Francesca Amoroso, Alexandra Miere, Eric H Souied

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Refractive outcomes for secondary sutureless posterior chamber lens implantation: sutureless scleral fixating lens Carlevale® versus retropupillary iris-claw lens Artisan®.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel SeknaziDepartment of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, 94010 Créteil, France.
Donato ColantuonoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, 94010 Créteil, France.
Rachid TahiriGranville Center of Ophthalmology, 50400 Granville, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2181-3337
Francesca AmorosoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, 94010 Créteil, France.
Alexandra MiereDepartment of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, 94010 Créteil, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4123-8210
Eric H SouiedDepartment of Ophthalmology, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, 94010 Créteil, France.
Hôpital Intercommunal de Créteil · FRCentre Hospitalier Avranches Granville · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe management of patients with aphakia and/or lack of capsular support remains debated. The sutureless posterior chamber IOL (PCIOL) fixation is a very useful surgical option. The purpose of the study was to compare the early outcomes as well as post-operative best corrected visual acuity, refractive errors and complications of two different techniques of sutureless PCIOL secondary implantation.

methodsPatients who underwent secondary implantation from December 2019 to January 2021 in the Department of Ophthalmology of Creteil Hospital, and in the Granville Ophthalmology Center, were retrospectively included. Eyes implanted with the iris claw lens (Artisan Aphakia IOL model 205, Ophtec BV, Groningen, The Netherlands) were included in group 1, and eyes implanted with a newly developed sutureless trans-scleral plugs fixated lens (STSPFL, Carlevale lens, Soleko, Pontecorvo, Italy) were included in group 2.

resultsTwenty-two eyes of 22 patients were enrolled in group 1, and twenty eyes of 20 patients in group 2. No difference was found in visual acuity between two groups (0.35 +/- 0.29 logmar for group 1 and 0.23 +/- 0.51 logmar for group 2) (

conclusionsNo significant differences in terms of the recovery of visual acuity were found between the two groups. Group 2 (STPFL) gives better results in our sample due to less post-operative induced astigmatism and less refractive error.

Indexed as

iris claw lenssecondary implantationsutureless fixationsutureless trans-scleral plugs fixated lens

Identifiers

PMID34065508
PMCPMC8161112
OpenAlexW3160430536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.