ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2024
Visual outcomes of the surgical rehabilitative process following open globe injury repair.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The path of rehabilitation of an eye after open globe injury (OGI) may require multiple additional secondary surgeries after the initial repair. Although much has been studied regarding the outcomes of secondary surgeries after open globe repair, it can be challenging to understand the possible implications of the surgical rehabilitative process. This retrospective study considers the benefits of the required additional secondary surgeries for a consecutive series of OGI patients. Methods: OGI patients who had at least one additional surgery after the initial open globe repair (OGR) were studied retrospectively. Additional inclusion criteria included: follow up of at least 12 months since the initial injury and at least 3 months since their most recent surgery, and no additional planned interventions. Preoperative visual acuity was compared to final visual acuity. Additionally, the odds of achieving ambulatory vision (≥20/800) and reading vision (≥20/40) were calculated after each indicated consecutive surgery. Results: A cohort of 74 eyes from 73 patients met our inclusion criteria. These patients underwent a mean of two additional surgeries. The mean logMAR VA improved from 2.3 (HM) at presentation to 1.4 (20/150), or a 9-line Snellen equivalent improvement. Upon reaching their final visit status, 50% of patients had achieved ambulatory vision and 30% of patients had achieved reading vision. The odds of achieving ambulatory vision after completion of all the rehabilitative surgical process compared to the vision prior to the secondary rehabilitative surgery were higher (OR: 19.1, 95% CI: 7.9 - 30.4, p = 0.0008) as were the odds of achieving reading vision (OR: 4.6, 95% CI: 0.2 - 9.0, p = 0.04). With subsequent second, third, and fourth additional surgeries, the odds of achieving either ambulatory or reading vision at the final visit compared to their preoperative visual acuities were not significant (p > 0.05) but the visual acuity continued to trend toward visual improvement. Conclusion: Approximately 50% of individuals who required additional surgery at UMN achieved ambulatory vision and 30% achieved reading vision. The odds of visual improvement through the surgical rehabilitative process were very high, with the greatest gains generally achieved after the first surgery.
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.