Trial reportEuropean journal of ophthalmology2024
In vivo comparison of implantation behavior and laboratory analysis of two preloaded intraocular lens injectors.
Trial report in European journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeWe evaluated implantation behavior and injector damage of two different IOL injector systems, the Multisert and the AutonoMe.
designProspective, randomized, comparative study with laboratory investigation.
methodsWe examined used injectors from 48 bilateral cataract cases and assessed video recordings of each Implantation. All eyes were intraindividually randomized for treatment with one of the two IOL injectors. Implantation videos were reviewed for inadvertent events and the time for different implantation steps was determined. The injector nozzle tips were examined using light and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Damage was graded using the Heidelberg Score for IOL injector damage (HeiScore). Three months postoperatively, IOLs were assessed for material changes.
resultsImplantation was without critical events in 96 of 96 eyes. Mean implantation time was 41.90 ± 7.11 s with the Multisert and 52.22 ± 12.06 s with the AutonoMe. In the AutonoMe group, we observed 4 eyes (8.3%) with a failed docking attempt, 28 eyes (58.3%) with a haptic adherence, one case (2.1%) of straight leading haptic and 2 cases (4.2%) of intrawound IOL manipulation. There were no events observed in the Multisert group. The mean HeiScore values were 0.87 ± 0.61 and 3.68 ± 0.47 for the AutonoMe and Multisert. 3 months postoperatively, IOL material changes were absent.
conclusionsBoth injectors allowed safe and controlled implantation. Using Multisert, implantation behavior was more consistent. The injectors showed different damage profiles with a higher damage score for the Multisert.The study is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien; reference number: DRKS00007837).
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.