ArticleCureus2021
In Vitro Comparison of Various High-Speed Vitrectomy Machines Using Dual Blade Cutters.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between a 25G 20,000 and a 10,000 cuts per minute vitrectomy: a prospective randomized control study.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Risk for Surgical Team Hearing Loss With Vitrectomy.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The objective of this study is to compare various dual blade vitrectomy cutters for their efficiency in an in vitro setting. Methods In this in vitro experimental study, we compared various vitrectomy systems including EVA (Dutch Ophthalmic Research Center, Zuidland, The Netherlands), REVOLUTION (Optikon 2000, Inc., Rome, Italy), and OS4 (Oertli Instrumente AG, Berneck, Switzerland) in terms of efficiency in vitreous cutting and aspiration for various vitreous substitutes. These substitutes included water, chicken egg albumin, and goat vitreous. We only used 23-gauge dual blade cutters across all platforms to maintain uniformity. The cutting and aspiration efficiency was measured across various cut and vacuum settings of vitrectomy machines and measured as mass aspirated in a given time. Data analysis included comparing the amount of mass aspirated by these machines at preset cut and vacuum settings. Results Scatter plots showed a comparable mass of water aspirated by the EVA and REVOLUTION at 1000 to 5000 cuts per minute at a constant vacuum of 500 mm Hg whereas OS4 aspirated lesser mass at similar settings. Same trends were noted for goat vitreous for EVA and REVOLUTION but aspirated mass of albumin fluctuated widely across various platforms. At peak machine settings, REVOLUTION showed superiority across all three vitreous models due to its higher peak settings. The area under curve (AUC) analysis showed no significant differences among machines for water and goat vitreous at comparable settings but results were fluctuating for egg albumin. Conclusion Employing higher cut rates for dual blade cutters results in better efficiency of vitrectomy machines.
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.