ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2023
Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between 10,000 and 5000 cuts per minute vitrectomy using a 25G cutter: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between a 25G 20,000 and a 10,000 cuts per minute vitrectomy: a prospective randomized control study.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of complex rhegmatogenous retinal detachment treated with a 25-G, 10,000-cpm beveled-tip cutter probe.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Updates on Treatment Modalities for Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Repair.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Approach to Ophthalmic Surgery Involving the Anterior Vitreous: A Clinical Practice Update from the American Society of Retina Specialists.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to compare the performance of the 25+® UltraVit® 5000 cuts per minute (cpm) vitrectomy probe versus the 25+ ® Ultravit 10,000 cpm® beveled tip, dual drive vitrectomy probe.
methodIn this prospective randomised controlled clinical trial, 52 eyes of 52 consecutive patients were randomized into either the 10,000 cpm (25 patients) or 5000 cpm vitrectomy group (27 patients). Patients were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively on the first day, and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. The main outcome measures were vitrectomy time, and secondary endpoints were time to induction of posterior vitreous detachment, intraoperative complications, and number of instruments used.
resultsThe vitrectomy time was shorter in the 10,000 cpm group (413.7 s) compared to the 5000 cpm group (463.4 s), although there was no significant difference (p = 0.5999). One patient had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 10,000 cpm group while two patients had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 5000 cpm group. The time for posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) induction and the number of instruments used were not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionThe difference in vitrectomy times between the 10,000 cpm vitrectomy probe and the 5000 cpm cutter were not statistically significant. This may suggest that other factors affect efficiency rather than the limitations of equipment.
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.