ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Magnification and Refocusing Comparison in Cataract Surgery Using a Heads-Up Three-Dimensional Visualization System versus Conventional Binocular Microscopy.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06264830 (Comparing the Effect of Depth of Focus Difference in High Myopic Patients Receiving Cataract Operations Between 3D Visualization System and Traditional Optical Microscope.), which is not on this 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.
Comparing the Effect of Depth of Focus Difference in High Myopic Patients Receiving Cataract Operations Between 3D Visualization System and Traditional Optical Microscope.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anterior Capsule Contrast and Capsulorhexis Geometry Across Visualization Systems in Cataract Surgery: An Exploratory Image-Based Comparison.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Stereoscopic Projection of Cataract Surgery Video and Observer Perception of Intraocular Spatial Relationships.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare magnification and refocusing during phacoemulsification with the NGENUITY Setting: This study was performed in the Department of Anterior Segment of the Fundación Hospital Nuestra Señora de la Luz. Design: Prospective, randomized, cross-sectional, multi-surgeon, and comparative study. Methods: This study enrolled 100 patients (eyes) scheduled for phacoemulsification to measure the number of times changes in focusing and magnification were needed during cataract surgery. Results: Our study included 100 patients. From the endpoints evaluated, "zoom-in" showed statistically significant differences for all of the four predefined cataract surgery steps (means: Step 1, 0.38 (CM) vs 0.08 (3-D); Step 2, 0.36 (CM) vs 0.06 (3-D); Step 3, 0.54 (CM) vs 0.22 (3-D); Step 4, 0.56 (CM) vs 0.24 (3-D); all comparisons, p <0.05). In Step 4, there was a statistically significant increased use of "focus-out" for the 3-D system (mean 0.16 (CM) vs 0.58 (3-D); p <0.05). "Focus-in" and "zoom-out" showed no group differences for all steps. The duration of surgery with the 3-D system was longer at each step and overall. The percentage of light intensity did not show a statistically significant difference between both systems, with a mean of 99.45 for CM vs 98.43% for the heads-up system. Conclusion: The heads-up 3-D system is a safe option that offers excellent magnification for anterior segment visualization. The surgical time is longer, but adjusting settings like light intensity and brightness may facilitate some surgical steps early in the learning curve.
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.