ArticleInternational ophthalmology2021
Comparing clinical outcomes of macular hole surgeries performed by trainee surgeons using a 3D heads-up display viewing system versus a standard operating microscope.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing Precision and Clarity with New Digital Color Assistant in 3D Heads-Up Vitreoretinal Surgery.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty and Descemet Stripping Only Using a 3D Visualization System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Effects of image-sharpening algorithm on surgical field visibility during 3D heads-up surgery for vitreoretinal diseases.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Heads-Up Three-Dimensional Viewing Systems in Vitreoretinal Surgery: An Updated Perspective.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
- Three-Dimensional Heads-Up vs. Standard Operating Microscope for Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the surgical outcomes of macular hole (MH) surgery performed by trainee surgeons using a three-dimensional heads-up display (3D HUD) versus a standard operating microscope (SOM). MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review of all consecutive medical records patients operated on for MHs by a trainee surgeon between 2017 and 2020 using either 3D HUD or SOM was performed. Minimum hole diameter, maximum hole diameter, total surgical time, and MH closure rates were compared between the two groups. MH retinal detachments, traumatic MHs, and MHs for which inverted internal limiting membrane flaps were used were excluded from the study.
resultsTrainee surgeons operated on 51 patients using 3D HUD and 63 patients using SOM. Age at presentation, intraocular pressure (IOP) at diagnosis, maximum hole diameter, minimum hole diameter, surgical time, duration between diagnosis and surgery were comparable between both groups. MH closure rate was significantly (p < 0.004) higher in the 3D HUD group (n = 44, 86.3%) than that of the SOM group (n = 38, 60.3%). There were no postoperative adverse events such as glaucoma or retinal detachment in either group. Other than the viewing technique, there were no significant variables associated with MH closure in the two groups.
conclusionSurgeries conducted by trainee surgeons using 3D HUD had higher MH closure rates than those using SOM.
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.