ArticleCase reports in ophthalmology
Femtosecond LASER-Assisted Double Intraocular Lens Exchange in Nanophthalmic Eyes.
Article in Case reports in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Though patients with nanophthalmos frequently endure decreased quality of vision with contact lenses or spectacles, refractive surgery is generally an inadequate alternative due to the associated high refractive error. A refractive lens exchange (RLE) is an alternative option but is technically challenging, requiring accuracy in biometry measurements and procedures. Case Presentation: This case discusses a 27-year-old female with nanophthalmos (axial lengths 17.6 mm and 17.4 mm, right and left eyes, respectively) who underwent a femtosecond laser-assisted (FLA) RLE with simultaneous implantation of a monofocal and a Sulcoflex trifocal (Rayner, Britain) lens in each eye. Preoperative cycloplegic refraction was +11.50/-0.75 × 145 and +12.00/-1.00 × 35 in the RE and LE, respectively. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at distance and near in the RE and LE was 6/7.5 and J1, 6/8.5 and J2, respectively. Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) was >6/120 and >J14 for each eye. FLA RLE was performed in the RE, then in the LE 2 weeks later. In each eye, a monofocal (44.0 D, RE, and LE) and a Sulcoflex trifocal lens (both implants, Rayner, Britain) were implanted in one procedure. Distance and near UCVA measured 6 weeks post-op RE and 1-month post-op LE at 6/8.5 and J1 in the RE, 6/10 and J1 in the LE. The RE and LE refraction and BCVA were +0.50/-1.00 × 115, 6/7.5, and plano/-1.00 × 55, 6/8.5, respectively. The post-op outcomes were uneventful. Conclusion: A single procedure concurrently implanting a monofocal and Sulcoflex trifocal intraocular lens in nanophthalmic eyes resulted in an excellent UCVA. This procedure can be considered esthetic and reconstructive as it significantly improves patient appearance and function.
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.