ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023
Single or double? A comparison of evisceration techniques.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared the rates of implant exposure and extrusion after evisceration with single and double scleral closure techniques.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent evisceration with an implant insertion over the past 18 years at Tung Wah Eastern Hospital and Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital. Clinical documents and operation records were reviewed.
resultsA total of 81 ethnic Chinese patients (44 male) who underwent evisceration with primary implant insertion were reviewed. 39 (48%) patients underwent the double scleral closure technique with an implant placed posterior to the posterior sclera, and 42 (52%) patients underwent the single scleral closure technique with an implant inserted in the intra-scleral cavity. The follow-up interval was 70 months. The surgical indications were endophthalmitis (35%), painful blind eye (23%), traumatic disfigured globe (22%) and phthisis bulbi (20%). Silicone was the most used implant material (69%). The patients who underwent double scleral closure had a larger size of the implant (19.7 vs 17.9 mm, p < 0.05). Both implant exposure (26% vs 3%, p < 0.05) and implant extrusion (26% vs 0%, p < 0.05) were more common in patients who underwent single scleral.
conclusionsDouble scleral closure technique allows a larger implant, and it is associated with a lower rate of implant exposure and extrusion. The double scleral closure technique is a superior technique of choice in these patients with primary implant placement.
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.