ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Comparing forceps and self-assembled intraocular rare earth magnet in removing metallic intraocular foreign bodies in 25-guage vitrectomy.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glass intraocular foreign body removal assisted by biological amniotic membrane: a case report.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- T-shaped pars plana scleral incision to remove large intraocular foreign body.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy and efficiency of self-assembled intraocular rare earth magnet and forceps in removing intraocular foreign bodies(IOFBs) undergoing 25-gauge(G) pars plana vitrectomy.
methodsA total of 30 patients with metallic IOFB underwent 25-G PPV were enrolled into this study. Self-assembled intraocular rare earth magnet were used in 15 patients(bar group), and forceps were used in 15 patients(forceps group). Success rate of removing IOFB, time taken to remove IOFB, incidence of IOFB slippage and fall, iatrogenic retinal damages were compared between the two groups.
resultsThere was no significant difference in success rate of removing IOFBs between the groups(93.3% and 100%, P > 0.99). The median time taken of removing FB was significantly shorter in bar group than in forceps group(112 and 295 s, P = 0.001). None of the patients in bar group had IOFB slippage and fall, or related iatrogenic retinal damage in the process of removal. In forceps group, IOFB slippage and fall during removal were observed in 7 of 15(47.6%) patients, related iatrogenic retinal injuries were recorded in 6 of 15(40.0%) patients, both were significantly higher than bar group(P = 0.003 and P = 0.017, respectively).
conclusionsCompared with forceps, the assembled intraocular magnet can greatly reduce the possibility of IOFB slippage and fall, prevent related iatrogenic retinal damage, and shorten the time taken to remove IOFB. The assembled intraocular magnet can be an useful tool in removing metallic IOFBs in PPV.
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.