Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2024
Corneal endothelial cell loss and intraocular pressure following phacoemulsification using a new viscous-cohesive ophthalmic viscosurgical device.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 2024. 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.
- Hyaluronic acid concentration predictably modulates physicochemical properties and clinical performance in ophthalmic viscosurgical devices: integrated laboratory and prospective clinical assessment.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Trial
- Randomized comparative multicenter study assessing two dispersive viscosurgical devices for cataract surgery.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Trial
- Association of Systemic and Ocular Comorbidities with Visual Recovery in Patients with Postoperative Corneal Oedema: A Real-World Study of Cataract Surgery Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Preoperative and Intraoperative Risk Factors for Short-Term Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss After Phacoemulsification in Dogs: A Comparative Study.Veterinary ophthalmology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare results of two ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs)-Viscoat (a dispersive OVD, Alcon) and FR-Pro (a viscous-cohesive OVD, Rayner), in phacoemulsification surgery.
methodsA prospective randomized controlled study. Patients undergoing phacoemulsification were randomly assigned to receive one of the two OVDs. Exclusion criteria were age under 40, preoperative endothelial cell count (ECC) below 1,500 cells/mm
resultsThe study included 84 eyes-43 in the Viscoat group and 41 in the FR-Pro group. Mean cell density loss at month one and month three was 17.0 and 19.2%, respectively, for the Viscoat group and 18.4 and 18.8%, respectively, for the FR-Pro group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.772 and p = 0.671, respectively). The mean ECC difference between the month one and month three visits was 50.5 cells/mm
conclusionsViscoat and FR-Pro have comparable results following phacoemulsification surgery, suggesting that while FR-Pro is not a dispersive OVD, its endothelial cell protection may be comparable to one, perhaps due to the addition of sorbitol. Furthermore, a one-month follow-up of ECC seems sufficient in such trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38319386What 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.