Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38390574›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Ophthalmic surgeries on

Michael Körber, Jakob Fellinger, Milan Fritsche, Andreas Giese, Konstantina Kostourou, Daniel Kopf, Manfred Kottcke, Francesco Luciani, Josef M Schmidbauer, Jonathan Wenk and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Michael KörberApplied Mathematics, Physics and Humanities, Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Nuremberg, Germany.
Jakob FellingerMONTFORT Laser GmbH, Götzis, Austria.
Milan FritscheApplied Mathematics, Physics and Humanities, Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Nuremberg, Germany.
Andreas GieseApplied Mathematics, Physics and Humanities, Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Nuremberg, Germany.
Konstantina KostourouNANEO Precision IBS Coatings GmbH, Lindau, Germany.
Daniel KopfMONTFORT Laser GmbH, Götzis, Austria.
Manfred KottckeApplied Mathematics, Physics and Humanities, Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Nuremberg, Germany.
Francesco LucianiClinic of Ophthalmology, Klinikum Nürnberg Nord, Nuremberg, Germany.
Josef M SchmidbauerParacelsus Medical University, Nuremberg, Germany.
Jonathan WenkApplied Mathematics, Physics and Humanities, Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Nuremberg, Germany.
Bernd BraunApplied Mathematics, Physics and Humanities, Nuremberg Institute of Technology, Nuremberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This work demonstrates significant advantages in ophthalmic surgeries through the use of picosecond ultrashort laser pulses instead of state-of-the-art nanosecond laser pulses. These ultrashort lasers shall serve as universal tools more effectively combining advantages of high precision, low impact and economic advantages compared to existing instruments. Methods: As samples, we used post-mortem porcine eyes on which we performed the experiments with both picosecond and nanosecond lasers. Performed surgeries were laser iridotomy, (post-) cataract treatment/capsulotomy and selective laser-trabeculoplasty. Pulse widths were between 12 ps and 220 ns with pulse energies between 30 μJ and 10 mJ at 532 nm and 1,064 nm. Additionally, we investigated accompanying shock waves, cavitation bubbles, and heat effects during the ablation processes. Results: For all surgeries, significant differences were observed between picosecond and nanosecond pulses: It was possible to scale the pulse energy down to 10 of microjoules rather than requiring millijoules, and resulting tissue ablations are much more precise, more deterministic and less frayed. The shock wave and cavitation bubble investigation revealed major differences in pressure between picosecond pulses (0.25 MPa, 50 μJ) and nanosecond pulses (37 MPa, 5 mJ). The heat input during ablation could be lowered by two orders of magnitude. Conclusion: Picosecond ultrashort laser pulses show substantial benefits for several ophthalmic surgeries, with regard to ablation precision, shock wave generation and heat input. They are better than state-of-the-art ophthalmic nanosecond lasers in all aspects tested.

Indexed as

capsulotomycataractglaucomairidotomypicosecond lasershock wavesSLT

Identifiers

PMID38390574
PMCPMC10881746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.