Trial reportInternational ophthalmology2024
Evaluation of the (Baha) technique of scleral indentation using a self-retained scleral indenter during vitrectomy surgery: a randomized trial.
Trial report in International ophthalmology, 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, 1 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe current study compared a novel technique of scleral indentation using the self-retaining Leyla retractor to the conventional scleral self-indentation with the chandelier light.
methodsPatients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment were randomized on a 1:1 basis to either have the (Baha) indentation using a tip of a thimble scleral indenter welded to the support for the Leyla retractor system or to have the conventional scleral indentation while using a 25-gauge chandelier light. A video was recorded for the surgery of all the cases and reviewed by another consultant masked to the type of indentation. The indentation duration (i.e., the time in seconds between the first appearance of a hump due to scleral indentation in the recorded video until its final disappearance) was measured for every case.
resultsThe current study included 60 eyes of 60 adults with a mean age of 59.6 ± 9.8 years. Thirty-nine of the eyes were phakic and 21 were pseudophakic. The mean indentation time was 618 ± 87 and 696 ± 72 s in (Baha) indentation and conventional indentation groups, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 38). There was a positive correlation between the vertical palpebral fissure height and the indentation duration for both (Baha) indentation (r = 0.58) and conventional indentation groups (r = 0.42). Readjustment of the chandelier endo-illumination was required in 19 cases (63.3%) in the conventional indentation group. Iatrogenic breaks or accidental crystalline lens touch did not occur in any case.
conclusionThe (Baha) technique is effective and safe, especially in patients with a larger palpebral fissure.
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.