ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Comparative evaluation of an automated preloaded delivery system with a non-preloaded system.
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. It is linked to trial NCT07288086 (Reliability and Effectiveness of New Enova Preloaded Intaocular Lens and Cartridge System), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Reliability and Effectiveness of New Enova Preloaded Intaocular Lens and Cartridge System
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate a single surgeon's experience with an automated preloaded intraocular lens (IOL) delivery system and a nonpreloaded system. Methods: This was a prospective, observational case series. Phacoemulsification was performed under topical anesthesia by creating a temporal clear corneal incision. Patients were consecutively assigned to either the Clareon group (n = 50; the IOL was injected into the capsular bag by using an automated injector system) or the AcrySof group (n = 50; the IOL was injected into the capsular bag by using a conventional injector system). The main outcome measures were ease of implantation, intraoperative complications, postoperative centration, and visual acuity. Results: Additional manipulation in the anterior chamber was not required in 38 (74%) eyes in the Clareon group and 41 (82%) eyes in the AcrySof group. However, seven eyes in the Clareon group and one eye in the AcrySof group required trailing haptic dislodgement from the optic. Furthermore, two eyes in the Clareon group and five eyes in the AcrySof group required injector rotation (varying from 10° to 90°) in the wound. Moreover, in two eyes of the Clareon group, the silicon plunger of the injector system crossed over the optic. None of the patients developed iris trauma and PCR during IOL manipulation. All the IOLs were centered in the capsular bag. Conclusion: The automated IOL delivery system enables the controlled delivery of an IOL in the capsular bag. The effect of carbon footprints created by plastic generated from the delivery system and the implications of the CO
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.