SynthesisOphthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde2024
Comparison of Chandelier-Assisted versus Standard Scleral Buckling for the Treatment of Primary Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors of retinal non-reattachment after initial buckling surgery for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional heads-up pneumatic retinopexy with chandelier illumination for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in eyes with mild media opacity: a prospective case series.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Functional Outcome of Chandelier-Assisted Scleral Buckling in Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of current ophthalmologyReview
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
introductionCompare the anatomical and functional outcomes, operation duration, and complication rates between standard scleral buckling (SSB) and chandelier-assisted scleral buckling (CSB) for phakic eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2024. The primary endpoint will be set as a final success. The secondary endpoint will be primary success, operation time, and final BCVA.
resultsOur meta-analysis showed that there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB for the final success rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.97-1.03). For the primary success rate, there is no statistical difference between CSB and SSB (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.94-1.06). For operation time, our meta-analysis showed that the CSB group is less than the SSB group (pooled MD = -15.8, 95% CI = -22.60 to -9.00). For postoperative complications, our study shows that the CSB group presented with lower pooled risk than the SSB group (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.41-0.89). There is a trend that the ERM formation risk is higher in the CSB group if there is no routine suture for the sclerotomy (p = 0.08).
conclusionCSB showcases a significantly reduced operation duration and less postoperative complication in contrast to the SSB group, maintaining comparable primary and ultimate anatomical success rates as well as final BCVA.
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.