ArticleKorean journal of ophthalmology : KJO2024
Clinical Performance Comparison of Ultrahigh-speed Dual Pneumatic Vitrectomy Probes: Is Faster and Smaller Better?
Article in Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO, 2024. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeVarious vitrectomy probes are currently being used commercially, and there are ongoing efforts toward developing probes with higher cutting rates and smaller gauges. This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of various commercially available small gauge ultrahigh-speed dual pneumatic vitrectomy probes.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients and recorded intraoperative videos while they underwent microincision three-port vitrectomy surgery for idiopathic epiretinal membrane at Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital. The patients were categorized into four groups based on the vitrectomy probe used during surgery: 23-7500 (UltraVit 23-gauge 7,500 cuts per minute [CPM]), 23-7500 (UltraVit 25-gauge 7,500 CPM), 25-10K (Advanced UltraVit 25-gauge 10,000 CPM), and 27-10K (Advanced UltraVit 27-gauge 10,000 CPM).
resultsIn total, 82 eyes from 82 patients were included in this work, with 16, 11, 26, and 29 eyes in groups 23-7500, 25-7500, 25-10K, and 27-10K, respectively. The corresponding vitrectomy times were 295.56 ± 53.55, 293.09 ± 50.28, 299.92 ± 59.42, and 349.38 ± 67.23 seconds, respectively. There was a significant difference in the vitrectomy time between the groups (p = 0.004). The mean number of sutures was 3, 3, 2.96, and 0.83, respectively. In the 23-7500 group, there was one case of iatrogenic retinal break, while in the 27-10K group, there was one case of postoperative hypotony.
conclusionsAlthough advancements have been made in the 27-gauge vitrectomy probe, it still takes more vitrectomy time than it does when using the 23- and 25-gauge probes. However, the delay was within an average of 1 minute, and considering the significantly reduced need for sutures, there is a substantial benefit in terms of postoperative discomfort. Therefore, when choosing a probe for epiretinal membrane surgery among the four options, it is reasonable to select the 27-gauge probe according to the surgeon's preference.
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.