ArticleEye (London, England)2024
The Royal College of Ophthalmologists' National Ophthalmology Database study of cataract surgery: Report 17, a risk factor model for posterior capsule rupture.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of extended reality (XR) simulation on ophthalmology training outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of surgical complexity and surgeon experience on phacoemulsification outcomes: a one-year retrospective study from a Saudi tertiary eye hospital.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Article
- Determinants of reoperation following cataract surgery: a real-world analysis from a large tertiary training eye hospital in Iran.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Visual Outcomes and Complication Rates of Cataract Surgery in Asian High Myopic Patients: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo create a risk factor model for posterior capsule rupture (PCR) during cataract surgery. SUBJECTS/
methodsEligible operations between 01/04/2016 and 31/03/2022 from centres supplying data to the UK national cataract audit with complete data including patients' gender and age at surgery, anterior chamber depth (ACD) measurement and preoperative visual acuity (VA) were included. A logistic regression model was fitted to identify risk factors and calculate their odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for PCR.
resultsThis analysis included 961,208 cataract operations performed on 682,381 patients from 136 participating centres by 3198 surgeons. 9730 (1.01%) of surgeries were complicated by PCR. The median age was 75.7 and 76.7 years for first and second eye surgery respectively, and 5154 (53.0%) were female. The highest risk factors for PCR were less experienced trainee surgeon (OR 3.75, 95% CI 3.33-4.24, p < 0.001), pseudoexfoliation/phacodonesis (OR 3.47, 95% CI 3.05-3.94, p < 0.001), younger males (OR 3.05, 95% CI 2.23-4.16, p < 0.001) and brunescent/white/mature cataract (OR 2.41, 95% CI 2.24-2.60, p < 0.001). Other risk factors identified were glaucoma, worse preoperative VA, previous intravitreal therapy, high myopia, previous vitrectomy, systemic diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, amblyopia, older age, shallower ACD and inability to lie flat and cooperate.
conclusionVarious surgical, patient and ocular factors increase the risk of PCR during cataract surgery. This risk factor model permits estimation of individualised risks for patients and allows risk-adjustment for surgeons to evaluate their PCR rates based on case complexity.
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.