ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2021
Retrospective Comparison of Intraoperative Parameters, Efficacy and Safety in Cataract Surgery Between Halogen and Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Illuminated Surgical Microscope.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective was to compare the operative time, ultrasound time, efficacy and safety of phacoemulsification with IOL insertion between using halogen and light-emitting diode (LED) illuminated microscope. PATIENTS AND
methodsTwo hundred and twenty-seven surgical charts of cataract patients who underwent phacoemulsification with IOL insertion between June 2018 and October 2020 were reviewed. There were 113 cases operated on under halogen-illuminated microscope (Carl Zeiss OPMI LUMERA S7
resultsThe mean ultrasound time was 121.29±53.60 seconds in halogen group and 123.98±61.53 seconds in LED group. The mean difference was -2.69±8.44 seconds which was not statistically significant (95% CI, -19.35 to 13.97; p=0.573). The mean operative time was 19.83±4.77 minutes in the halogen group and 17.20±3.02 minutes in the LED group. The mean difference was 2.63±0.53 minutes (95% CI, 1.59 to 3.67; p < 0.001). The cases with BCVA better than 20/30 was 93.69% in halogen group and 95.49% in LED group. The proportion of cases with intraoperative complications was 3.53% in halogen group and 2.63% in LED group. The difference of both proportions was not statistically significant (p=0.553 and p=0.692, respectively).
conclusionThis study shows statistically significant operative time reduction with LED microscope. This evidence could be used for making the decision to switch from halogen microscope to LED microscope. Upgrading to LED-illuminated microscope might be beneficial for productivity improvement if there were at least six to seven cases operated on per day. The ultrasound time, efficacy, and safety showed no significant difference.
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.