ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Does the introduction of streamlight decrease refractive surgery operating time?
Article 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.
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
purposeThe aim of the study was to analyze the time-savings associated with introduction of Streamlight™ (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA) transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in surface corneal ablations.
methodsAll refractive surgeries were performed using the Alcon WaveLight® EX500 at the ArtLife Clinic, Gdańsk, Poland. The study included patients treated for refractive errors with transepithelial PRK between April 2019 and October 2021, who were matched with patients treated with alcohol-assisted PRK during the same period. Only results for the left eye were analyzed.
resultsOne-hundred-five patients underwent transepithelial PRK (age 33.42 ± 8.67 years) and were matched with 105 patients that underwent alcohol-assisted PRK (age 33.05 ± 10.16 years; p = 0.11). The mean preoperative spherical equivalent refraction was - 2.04 ± 2.28 D, and - 1.9 ± 1.71 D for the transepithelial and alcohol-assisted PRK group, respectively (p = 0.20). The total surgery time was non-significantly shorter in transepithelial PRK (349.46 ± 47.83 s) than in alcohol-assisted PRK (354.93 ± 137.63 s; p = 0.7); however, the variance of surgical time was significantly lower in transepithelial PRK (p < 0.001). The laser treatment duration was greater in transepithelial PRK (41.78 ± 17.2 s) than in alcohol-assisted PRK (8.48 ± 6.12 s; p < 0.001), and so was the number of breaks during the laser treatment (0.95 ± 0.63 vs. 0.53 ± 0.88, respectively; p < 0.001).
conclusionThe introduction of transepithelial PRK did not bring significant time-associated savings into the refractive surgery suite.
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.