Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34136317›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

In Vitro Comparison of Various High-Speed Vitrectomy Machines Using Dual Blade Cutters.

Haroon Tayyab, Saima Jamil, Shiraz Hashmi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Haroon TayyabSurgery/Ophthalmology, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Saima JamilSurgery/Ophthalmology, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Shiraz HashmiSurgery, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, PAK.
Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi · KE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

duty cycleinfusion pressurepars planavitrectomyvitreous

Identifiers

PMID34136317
PMCPMC8197787
OpenAlexW3161347225

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.