ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Hydrogel Sealant for Closure of Clear Corneal Incisions in Combined Glaucoma Procedures.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adhesive bioactive materials in ocular applications: Toward smart, regenerative, and minimally invasive therapies.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- Intraocular injectable hydrogels for the delivery of cells and nanoparticles.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
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
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine whether ReSure hydrogel sealant is superior to standard suture for closure of clear corneal incisions in the setting of combined glaucoma procedures. Setting: Glaucoma Department, Duke University Eye Center. Design: This is a retrospective case series. Subjects studied were patients in a 6-year period undergoing combined phacoemulsification and glaucoma surgery. All cases were performed by the same surgeon. Wound closure methods correlated with discrete timeframes, as ReSure replaced suture midway through the study period, thereby establishing sutured closure as an analogous control group. Methods: All cases included a phacoemulsification procedure requiring a 2.4 mm clear corneal incision. Upon completion of the phacoemulsification portion of the case, the wound was closed with either ReSure hydrogel or standard 10-0 suture closure. The researchers assessed the rate of Seidel-positive corneal wound leak on postoperative day one. Results: In all cases employing ReSure, no wound leak was observed at postoperative day one. Within the suture group, 3 cases showed Seidel positivity of the corneal incision. This equates to a statistically significant difference in wound leak frequency of 2.04% (P = 0.012); confidence interval, 0.21 to 5.82. Conclusion: ReSure was able to maintain closure 100% of the time over hundreds of combined cases. Suture, though the standard of practice, did not perform to this level, presenting with 3 cases of spontaneous wound leak. We conclude that ReSure is highly effective and superior to suture in closure of clear corneal incisions in combined glaucoma procedures.
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.