ArticleInternational ophthalmology2023
Risk factors for a phacodonesis surprise during cataract surgery in patients with pseudoexfoliation.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improvement of the detection ability for zonular weakness before cataract surgery by comparing predicted and measured left-right differences in anterior chamber depth.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Functional and anatomical outcomes of Yamane technique-based scleral fixation after complicated cataract surgery versus IOL extraction.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Investigating the impact of age and sex on cataract surgery complications and outcomes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Investigation of Risk Factors Predicting Cataract Surgery Complications in Patients with Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the association of different pre-operative parameters with surprise phacodonesis during cataract surgery among patients with pseudoexfoliation (PXF). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a retrospective charts review of all PXF patients who underwent cataract surgery between the years 2013 and 2018. Pre-operative parameters (demographics, biometry, intraocular pressure (IOP), endothelial cell count, pupil size, cataract density, glaucoma status, cup to disc ratio, number of glaucoma medications, prior intra-vitreous injections, risk for intraoperative floppy iris syndrome) were compared between patients with and without surprise phacodonesis. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate the predictive value of each parameter.
resultsOut of 396 surgical cases with computerized pre-operative assessment, we included 127 eyes of 120 PXF patients without evidence of phacodonesis preoperatively. The mean age was 77.8 ± 12.0 years, 63 (52.7%) were male, and 106 (84.2%) underwent phacoemulsification surgery. We identified 10 cases of surprise phacodonesis during surgery (8.2%). Compared to PXF cases without intraoperative phacodonesis, they had higher pre-operative IOP (23.0 ± 11.0 mmHg vs. 14.9 ± 3.8 mmHg, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of B scan use due to dense cataract obscuring posterior pole evaluation [4 (40%) vs. 15 (12.8%), p = 0.04]. Multivariant binary logistic regression confirmed that only baseline IOP contributed to the prediction of surprise phacodonesis (OR 1.22 CI 1.04-1.43, p = 0.014).
conclusionsAmong patients with PXF undergoing cataract surgery, elevated IOP and poor posterior segment visibility requiring B scan use were associated with zonular instability putting these patients at risk for intra-operative complications.
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.