ArticleBMC ophthalmology2023
Video analysis of optic-haptic-interaction during hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens implantation using preloaded injectors.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Particle Release from Intraocular Lenses with a Combination of OptoFluidic Force Induction, μ-Raman and μ-FTIR.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the optic-haptic interaction of different hydrophobic acrylic IOLs after using six preloaded injectors.
methodsWe reviewed the video-recordings of procedures on a total of 388 eyes that underwent phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. For six preloaded injectors: multiSert (Hoya Surgical Optics) [System 1], TECNIS Simplicity (Johnson & Johnson Vision) [System 2], TECNIS iTec (Johnson & Johnson Vision) [System 3], AutonoMe (Alcon, Laboratories) [System 4], Bluesert (Carl Zeiss Meditec) [System 5], and Prosert (OphthalmoPro GmbH) [System 6], we noted in each case the time of IOL delivery and made a descriptive observation of IOL insertion and optic-haptic-interaction.
resultsWe defined standard haptic behavior where the haptics emerged "folded" from the injector and quickly recovered their pre-implantation appearance. The incidence where the leading haptic emerged in a deformed way for System 1 was 20%, System 2: 19%, System 3: 14%, System 4: 56%, System 5: 24% and System 6: 5%. For trailing haptic deformed behavior, the incidence was 36%, 6%, 4%, 8%, 18% and 2%, respectively for Systems 1 to 6. Optic-haptic adhesion occurred in 2% of cases for System 1, 44% for System 2, 52% for System 3, 48% for System 4, and 11% for System 6 (P < 0.05). Adhesion was not found with System 5.
conclusionsWe observed different deformed behavior for leading and trailing haptics in the six preloaded systems, some systems had as much as 52% optic-haptic adhesion.
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.