ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2023
Comparison of the reverse chopper-assisted prechop and phaco-chop nucleotomy techniques during phacoemulsification for cataracts with grade III nuclei: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2023. 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.
- Cataract Surgery in Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome Using the Eight-Chop Technique.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Phacoemulsification and Aspiration Parameters in Cataract Surgery: Metal Tip vs. Hybrid Tip.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Phacoemulsification surgery is the standard treatment for cataract. However, excessive ultrasound (US) energy may cause injury to the corneal endothelium and other ocular tissues. Recently, a new prechop technique assisted with the reverse chopper is showed to be more efficient and safe, by splitting the nuclei in situ without using any US energy. However, it is verified only in treating some kinds of complex cataracts such as grade IV hard nuclei cataract, small-pupil cataract, and ultra-high myopia cataract. Since grade III nuclei cataract is the most common type of cataract, it is necessary to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prechop technique with reverse chopper in routine cataract surgery. Methods: This prospective, two-parallel, randomized controlled trial was conducted in Beijing Tongren Hospital from January 2022 to September 2022. A total of 89 cataract patients (89 eyes) were enrolled and then randomly assigned to either the reverse chopper-assisted prechop group (n=45) or the phaco-chop group (n=44). The patients were followed for 3 months postoperatively. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), corneal endothelial cell loss (ECL), and degree of corneal edema were evaluated and compared between these 2 groups. Data were analyzed using SPSS 23.0 and GraphPad Prism 8.0. Results: The CDE of the reverse chopper-assisted prechop group was significantly less than that of the phaco-chop group (P=0.011). Compared with the phaco-chop group, the corneal edema in the reverse chopper-assisted prechop group was milder (P=0.026) and the BCVA was better (P=0.0012) at 1 day after surgery. No significant difference was found in the count or rate of corneal ECL between the 2 groups at 1 month after surgery (corneal ECL count: P=0.090; corneal ECL rate: P=0.053). The BCVA of the 2 groups at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery was equivalent (P=0.052, 0.26, and 0.41, respectively). Conclusions: The prechop technique assisted with the reverse chopper in treating cataract with grade III nuclei enables less phaco energy consumption, milder ocular structural damage, and faster recovery of vision, compared with traditional phaco-chop technique.
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.