ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024
Magnetized forceps for intraocular foreign body removal: which one is suitable?
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 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.
- A novel technique of magnetically guided single-pass limbal extraction for intraocular foreign bodies: Eliminating the need for intraocular instrument relay.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Global, Regional, National and HDI-Stratified Burdens of Intraocular Foreign Bodies from 1990 to 2021: A Trend Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMagnetic intraocular foreign bodies can be removed with magnetized disposable forceps. Aim of this study is to compare the forceps magnetizability of different size, form and manufacturer.
methodsThe forceps were magnetized using an established procedure. The inducible magnetic flux density was measured at the tip of the forceps. The mass that can be lifted with the magnetized forceps was then tested using steel balls in BSS solution. The weight of the metal parts of the forceps was measured.
resultsThe magnetic flux density that could be induced, the weight of the steel balls that could be lifted and the mass of stainless steel used in the forceps were as follows: Alcon end-grasping 23G: 7.12 mT, 87.43 mg, 1191 mg; Alcon end-grasping 25G: 6.43 mT, 87.43 mg, 1189 mg; Alcon serrated: 4.39 mT, 63.78 mg, 1284 mg; Alcon serrated 23G: 3.62 mT, 13.74 mg, 1200 mg; Alcon serrated 25G: 2.4 mT, 13.74 mg, 1195 mg; DORC end-grasping 23G: 5.52 mT, 32.54 mg, 153 mg; Synergetics end-grasping 23G: 4.35 mT, 16.37 mg, 193 mg; Vitreq BV end-grasping 23G: 2.65 mT, none, 88 mg. DISCUSSION: The magnetizability of a disposable microforceps seems to depend on the mass of steel at the tip of the forceps. The structure of the iron lattice could have an even greater influence. Not every disposable forceps can be sufficiently magnetized for this technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38951225What 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.