ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2021
Efficacy of a hinged pupil expansion device in small pupil cataract surgery.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- B-Hex, an ace up the sleeve for small pupil phacoemulsification.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
- A randomized control study on post-operative iris distortion following small-pupil cataract surgery using B-HEX pupil expander versus Malyugin ring.Medical journal, Armed Forces IndiaArticle
- Real-world uptake of an innovative pupil expander device for cataract surgery: Implementation lessons learnt.The Indian journal of medical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of a hinged pupil expansion device (PED) in eyes with small pupils undergoing phacoemulsification.
methodsIn this prospective, multicenter, interventional case series of 57 eyes with suboptimal pharmacologic pupil dilation (<5 mm diameter), a hinged PED (I-Ring, Beaver-Visitec International, Waltham, MA) was applied to facilitate surgical visualization during cataract surgery. The pupil diameters (PD) were measured at different stages of the procedure and at the 1-month follow-up visit. Rate of successful intraoperative PED deployment, pupil size, and shape were assessed.
resultsThe mean patient age was 70.5 ± 12.1 years. The I-Ring PED was successfully applied in all eyes. The mean PD at various stages were 4.1 ± 1.1 mm (dilation with eye drops only preoperatively), 4.3 ± 1.1 mm (dilation after intracameral epinephrine and ophthalmic viscoelastic device), 6.80 ± 0.00 mm (with PED applied), and 5.7 ± 1.1 mm (end of surgery). A statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) was observed between the mean PD with intracameral medications and with PED application. Postoperative circular pupil was observed in 54 of 57 eyes (94.7%) and the mean eccentricity index (n = 57 eyes) was 0.11 ± 0.22. No significant adverse events were observed.
conclusionThe I-Ring PED safely and effectively provided and maintained adequate pupil expansion and surgical visualization in eyes with small pupils undergoing cataract surgery. Postoperatively 95% of eyes attained circular pupils. This hinged PED is an additional instrumentation option for the safe and effective expansion of inadequately sized pupils during cataract surgery.
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.