ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2022
Comparing surgical efficiencies between phacoemulsification systems: a single surgeon retrospective study of 2000 eyes.
Article in International journal of 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occlusion Break Surge and Anterior Chamber Stability in the Intraocular Environment of Modern Phacoemulsification: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Comparison of Phacoemulsification and Aspiration Parameters in Cataract Surgery: Metal Tip vs. Hybrid Tip.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of INTREPID® balanced and hybrid tips on anterior capsule rupture in ex vivo porcine eyes.PloS one · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare under similar conditions intraoperative surgical efficiencies metrics between an active fluidics and a gravity based phacoemulsification systems.
methodsAdult patients who were diagnosed with a cataract that compromised visual acuity inferior to 20/40 were included in the study. Patients were excluded from the study if they had a history of severe retinal disorders, clinically significant corneal endothelial dystrophy or history of corneal disease. All phacoemulsification surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. Both phacoemulsification systems used the 0.9 mm 45-degree aspiration bypass system Intrepid Balanced tip and the 0.9 mm Intrepid Ultra infusion sleeve. All cataracts were classified using the Lens Opacities Classification System III, cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) and aspiration fluids were measured in each surgery.
resultsTotally 2000 eyes were included in the study. Phacoemulsification was performed in 1000 (50%) eyes with an active fluid dynamics system and in 1000 (50%) eyes with a gravity-based fluidic system. Mean CDE until fracture of the lens was 1.1 and 1.9 percent-seconds and total mean CDE used was 5.6 and 7.2 percent-seconds using an active fluidics dynamics system and gravity-based fluidic system, respectively (
conclusionThis study evidences that surgeries performed under similar conditions (same surgeon, phaco tip and sleeve) with the active fluidics dynamics system required significantly lower CDE and aspiration fluids.
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.