ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Management of intrascleral chestnut burr spines under ultrasound biomicroscopy guidance.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of ultrasound biomicroscopy in ocular trauma caused by chestnut-burr spines.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Case report: Ultrasound biomicroscopy as a guide for the selection of injection sites for dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex) for peripheral granulomatous ocular toxocariasis in children.Frontiers in medicine · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the efficacy of ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) as a tool for detecting and localizing intrascleral chestnut burr spines. Methods: Individuals who were diagnosed with definitive or suspected intrascleral chestnut burr injuries between 2019 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent UBM to detect potential intrascleral spines. UBM imaging features were recorded and analyzed. Intrascleral spines were removed based upon UBM-guided localization. Patient clinical profiles, management, and treatment outcomes were recorded. Results: A total of 10 eyes (10 patients; 6 males, 4 females) were diagnosed with intrascleral spines over the study period, with an average patient age of 55 years (range: 39-71). Three of these 10 eyes exhibited involvement of the palpebrae and cornea, whereas three exhibited corneal involvement, and the remaining four patients exhibited only intrascleral spine injuries owing to their having undergone previous intracorneal spine extraction procedures. UBM features consistent with chestnut burr spines manifest a hyperechoic spot with a shadow. UBM enabled the precise localization of these spines and thus ensured their successful removal via a single surgery. During follow-up, two patients experienced vitreous hemorrhage due to a penetrating injury into the ciliary body that was gradually absorbed. All patients with eye irritation and red eyes progressed favorably, and no surgical complications were recorded. Conclusion: A retained scleral chestnut burr spine should be suspected if a patient complains of persistent eye irritation following intracorneal spine removal. UBM may be a valuable tool for detecting spines retained in the sclera, enabling the successful removal thereof.
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.