Trial reportScientific reports2022
Refractive astigmatism in phaco-canaloplasty vs phaco-non-penetrating deep sclerectomy.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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.
- Visual Function After Schlemm's Canal-Based MIGS.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Revolution in glaucoma treatment: a review elucidating canaloplasty and gonioscopy-assisted transluminal trabeculotomy as modern surgical alternatives.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess refractive astigmatism, in phaco-canaloplasty (PC) vs phaco-non-penetrating deep sclerectomy (PDS) in a randomized, prospective study within 24 months. Patients were randomized pre-operatively, 37 underwent PC and 38 PDS. The following data was collected: BCVA, IOP, number of antiglaucoma medications, refraction with autokeratorefractometry. The assessment of astigmatism was simple arithmetic and vector analysis (calculations included cylinder with axis in form of centroids) and included double angle plots and cumulative refractive astigmatism graphs. Pre-operative mean BCVA in PC was 0.40 ± 0.43 and was comparable to BCVA in PDS 0.30 ± 0.32logMAR (P = 0.314). In the sixth month follow-up, mean BCVA showed no difference (P = 0.708) and was 0.07 ± 0.13 and 0.05 ± 0.11, respectively. However, 2 years after the intervention mean BCVA was better in PC 0.05 ± 0.12 than in PDS 0.12 ± 0.23 and it was statistically significant (P = 0.039). Mean astigmatism in PC at baseline was 1.13 ± 0.73Dcyl, at 6 months it was 1.09 ± 0.61 and at 2 years 1.17 ± 0.51. In PDS at baseline 1.35 ± 0.91 at 6 months 1.24 ± 0.86 and at 2 years 1.24 ± 0.82. There were no differences between the groups in mean astigmatism throughout the study. Centroids (mean of a cylinder with axis) in PC were pre-operatively 0.79D@172˚ ± 1.10Dcyl, at 6 months 0.75D@166˚ ± 1.01 and at 24-months 0.64D@164˚ ± 1.11 and in PDS pre-operatively 0.28D@10˚ ± 1.63D at 6 months 0.26D@11˚ ± 1.5 and at 24-months 0.47D@20˚ ± 1.43. The direction of mean astigmatism was against the rule in all analyzed time points. The mean baseline IOP in PC was 19.4 ± 5.8 mmHg and 19.7 ± 5.4 mmHg in PDS(P = 0.639). From the 6-month IOP was lower in PC, at 24-months it was 13.8 ± 3.3 mmHg in PC and 15.1 ± 2.9 mmHg in PDS(P = 0.048). In both groups preoperatively patients used median(Me) of three antiglaucoma medications(P = 0.197), at 24-months in PC mean 0.5 ± 0.9 Me = 0.0 and 1.1 ± 1.2 Me = 1.0 in PDS(P = 0.058). Both surgeries in mid-term observation are safe and effective. They do not generate vision-threatening astigmatism and do not even change the preoperative direction of mean astigmatism. Refractive astigmatism is stable throughout the observation.
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.