ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia
Pediatric canalicular laceration repair using the Mini Monoka versus Masterka monocanalicular stent.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOne of the most important disadvantages of using Mini Monoka stents in pediatric canalicular laceration repair is premature stent loss. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between the use of Mini Monoka and Masterka monocanalicular stents in children and discuss the potential causes of premature stent loss.
methodsThe medical records of 36 patients who underwent surgical repair of canalicular lacerations were retrospectively reviewed. Children aged <18 years who underwent canalicular laceration repair with either Mini Monoka or Masterka and had at least 6 months of follow-up after stent removal were included in the study. The patients' demographics, mechanism of injury, type of stent used, premature stent loss, and success rate were analyzed. Success was defined as stent removal without subsequent epiphora and premature stent loss.
resultsTwenty-seven children fulfilled our study criteria, and their data were included in the analyses. Mini Monoka was used in 14 patients (51.9%), whereas Masterka was used in 13 patients (48.1%). The preoperative clinical features, including age, sex, and mechanism of injury, were similar between the two groups. The mean age was 8.3 ± 5.5 years in the Mini Monoka group and 7.8 ± 5.9 years in the Masterka group (p=0.61). Three patients in the Mini Monoka group (21.4%) underwent reoperation due to premature stent loss. No premature stent loss was observed in the Masterka group. As a result, the rate of success was 78.6% in the Mini Monoka group, whereas it was 100% in the Masterka group (p=0.22).
conclusionsEven though the two groups did not show any statistically significant difference in success rate, we did not observe any premature stent loss in the Masterka group. Further studies with larger and randomized series are warranted to elaborate on these findings.
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.