Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34647960›Full record

Trial reportJAMA ophthalmology2021

Incidence of Incision-Related Descemet Membrane Detachment Using Phacoemulsification With Trapezoid vs Conventional 2.2-mm Clear Corneal Incision: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Ye Dai, Zhenzhen Liu, Wei Wang, Xiaotong Han, Ling Jin, Xiaoyun Chen, Guangming Jin, Lanhua Wang, Enen Zhang, Bo Qu and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04014699 (Clinical Evaluation of Modified 2.2mm Microincision Phacoemulsification for Age-related Cataract), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

NCT04014699 nacompletednot on this map

Clinical Evaluation of Modified 2.2mm Microincision Phacoemulsification for Age-related Cataract

TypeinterventionalSponsorZhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen UniversityRan2019 to 2020Enrolled130ConditionsCataractArmsmodified 2.2mm microincision, conventional 2.2mm microincision
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ye DaiState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhenzhen LiuState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Wei WangState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaotong HanState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Ling JinState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaoyun ChenState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Guangming JinState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Lanhua WangState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Enen ZhangState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Bo QuState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Jianping LiuState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Nathan CongdonState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Mingguang HeState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Lixia LuoState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yizhi LiuState Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNRoyal Victoria Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe conventional 2.2-mm clear corneal incision is relatively narrow compared with the sleeves of Phaco handpieces, resulting in friction at the incision site and increased risk of incision-related Descemet membrane detachment (DMD). The modified 2.2-mm incision only enlarged internal width to 3.0 mm, forming a trapezoid incision shape, which may reduce the friction of surgical instruments and decrease the risk of incisional DMD.

objectiveTo compare the incidence of incision-related DMD between eyes undergoing modified vs conventional 2.2-mm incision phacoemulsification for hard nuclear age-related cataract. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThis double-masked, parallel randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 22, 2019, to January 22, 2020, at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. The study included patients with age-related cataract and nuclear opalescence grade of 4.0 or greater based on the Lens Opacities Classification System III. Patients were enrolled in this study according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) age between 65 to 90 years; (2) pupil size of 6 mm or greater after dilation; (3) Lens Opacities Classification System III nuclear opalescence grade of 4.0 or more; and (4) corneal endothelial cell density greater than 1500 cells/mm2.

interventionsModified (enlarged internal width to 3.0 mm) or conventional 2.2-mm incision phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incidence of incision-related DMD at postoperative day 1.

resultsA total of 130 eyes of 130 patients were randomized into the conventional group (n = 65) or the modified group (n = 65). The mean (SD) age of participants was 74.5 (5.9) years and 74.3 (6.0) years in the conventional and modified groups, respectively. A total of 26 participants in the conventional group (40%) and 27 in the modified group (42%) were men. Compared with eyes in the conventional group, the incidence of DMD in eyes in the modified group was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (difference, 26.15; 95% CI, 9.60-42.71; P = .003). The difference at postoperative day 7 was 16.92 (95% CI, 2.91-30.94; P = .02). The length of DMD (postoperative day 1: difference, 0.188; 95% CI, 0.075-0.301; P = .002) and maximal corneal thickness at incision site (postoperative day 1: difference, 0.032; 95% CI, 0.006-0.057; P = .02; postoperative day 7: difference, 0.019; 95% CI, 0.003-0.035; P = .02) were lower in the modified group, while visual quality parameter modulation transfer function (postoperative day 1: difference, -0.033; 95% CI, -0.064 to -0.001; P = .04) was higher. No difference was observed between the 2 groups in best-corrected visual acuity, central corneal endothelium loss, or surgically induced astigmatism at any follow-up time. There were no intraoperative complications in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that modified 2.2-mm trapezoid incision phacoemulsification reduces the incidence of DMD for hard nuclear age-related cataract at postoperative day 1 and might be considered in patients at high risk of incision-related DMD, although the clinical relevance cannot be determined with certainty from this trial.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04014699.

Indexed as

CataractPhacoemulsificationAgedAged, 80 and overDescemet MembraneFemaleHumansIncidenceMalePostoperative ComplicationsVisual Acuity

Identifiers

PMID34647960
PMCPMC8600385
OpenAlexW3205997181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.