ArticleBMC ophthalmology2022
Impact of unintended initial dissection of the posterior plane during SMILE surgery on surgery time and visual outcomes.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. 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.
- Assessing Guideline Knowledge Alignment of Large Language Models in Ophthalmology: A Preclinical Benchmarking Study on KLEx Evidence-Based Guidelines.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The Efficiency, Predictability, and Safety of First-Generation (Visumax 500) and Second-Generation (Visumax 800) Keratorefractive Lenticule Extraction Surgeries: Real-World Experiences.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Three patterns for identifying the posterior plane of a lenticule during SMILE.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo study the impact of unintended initial dissection of the posterior plane (UIDPP) on operation time and surgical outcomes during small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery.
methodsThis was a retrospective study. Based on the SMILE procedure video, the operating eyes were assigned to the normal and UIDPP groups according to the presence or absence of UIDPP signals during surgery. The UIDPP group was further separated into early and late detection based on whether the complete dissection of the lenticule posterior plane or not. Patient's demographic data, preoperative evaluation data, operation time and postoperative outcomes were collected.
resultsSixty-six patients (66 eyes) who underwent SMILE were included, with 24 eyes with UIDPP (13 in the early detection group and 11 in the late group). The optical zone was smaller (median 6.5 vs. 6.6, P = 0.007), and the operation time was longer (median, 189.5 vs. 91.0 s, P < 0.001) in the UIDPP group compared with normal group. There were significant differences in operation time between the late detection group and early detection group (median, 489.0 vs. 139.0 s, P < 0.05) and between the late detection group and normal group (median 489.0 vs. 91.0 s, P < 0.05), while the optical zone was different only between the late detection and normal groups (median, 6.5 vs. 6.6, P < 0.05). At the one-year follow-up, UDVA was better than or equal to 20/20 in 87.5% of eyes, and 75% of eyes were within ± 0.5 D of the intended refractive target. One eye lost one Snellen line.
conclusionThe occurrence of UIDPP will significantly prolong the operation time, but not affect the recovery of long-term visual acuity after surgery. Detecting UIDPP earlier could help shorten the operation time.
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.