ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology case reports2024
Accessory lacrimal gland secretion mimicking seidel positivity following complex cataract surgery: Case report.
Article in American journal of ophthalmology case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The use of trypan blue to distinguish Pseudo-Seidel sign from lacrimal ductule versus glaucoma drainage device leakage.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To describe the presentation of lacrimal gland secretions mimicking a positive Seidel test following combined complex cataract surgery and endocyclophotocoagulation (ECP). Observation: The patient presented with a posterior subcapsular cataract (PSC) most likely secondary to chronic steroid use for a history of chemical burns from a firework injury in 2019. This injury resulted in symblepharon formation and limbal stem cell deficiency. He also developed glaucoma secondary to steroid response and angle structure damage. On postoperative day 1 (POD 1) after combined cataract surgery and ECP, the patient's paracentesis was Seidel positive and aqueous suppression was started. On postoperative week 1 (POW 1), the paracentesis was Seidel negative; however, it was noted at this visit that there were 3 pinpoint areas in the superotemporal conjunctiva that were Seidel positive. Digital pressure did not worsen the leak. Ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) was performed at POW 2.5 and showed lacrimal gland ducts in the superotemporal conjunctiva. Given this, it is likely that the "Seidel positive" finding was not due to aqueous humor leakage, but secretions from lacrimal gland tissue that may have been dragged more anteriorly due to conjunctiva scarring, thus producing a false positive Seidel sign. Conclusion & importance: This case highlights a false positive Seidel sign in the context of an eye with a complex ocular history and recent surgery. Clinicians should recognize that a false positive Seidel sign is possible if normal lacrimal gland anatomy has been disturbed.
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.