ArticleLasers in medical science2024
Settings and effectiveness of the revised probe compared to the original probe for micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 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.
- Efficacy and safety of micropulse transcleral cyclophotocoagulation using the original and revised pars plana probe.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Outcomes of MicroPulseJournal of current glaucoma practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe goal of this study was to compare the settings and effectiveness of the original P3 and revised P3 probes for micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation.
methodsThis retrospective cross sectional study includes a total of 56 patients with glaucoma who received micropulse transscleral cyclophotocoagulation. 32 patients received treatment with the original P3 probe and 24 received treatment with the revised P3 probe. Success was defined as a 20% reduction in intraocular pressure. Laser settings, pre-op and post-op intraocular pressures, and pre-op and post-op medications were assessed.
resultsA 20% IOP reduction was achieved in 50% of patients in the original probe vs. 58.3% in the revised probe at one month (P = 0.536) and 71.9% vs. 50% at three months (P = 0.094), respectively. The revised P3 probe used higher values of power (2500 mW vs. 2023 mW, P < 0.0001), total duration (217 s vs. 179 s, P < 0.0001), and energy (170 J vs. 113 J, P < 0.001). There was a significant decrease in IOP lowering meds with the original probe at one month (-0.9 +/- 1.5 vs. -0.0 +/- 0.7, P = 0.010), but this was not seen at three months.
conclusionsThere is no significant difference in IOP lowering effect between probes despite the revised probe using higher total energy. The original probe may be associated with fewer medications at 1 month, but not at 3 months. Further studies with longer follow up are needed to optimize the treatment parameters in order to maximize effectiveness while limiting side effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38795228What 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.