ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2025
Evaluation of Corneal Endothelium Damage with a New Handheld Fragmentation Device.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeTo quantify damage to corneal endothelial cells (CECs) from a new handheld lens fragmentation device and compare it with damage from a standard phacoemulsification device.
settingJohn A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
designExperimental Study.
methodsFifteen New Zealand white rabbits received bilateral surgery. Their eyes were divided into 3 groups (10 eyes/group): Intrepid Balanced Tip (Centurion Ozil handpiece; Alcon), miCOR 700 (Zeiss) half throttle (infusion/aspiration only), or full throttle (lens agitator engaged). After incision, the tip of each device was inserted into the anterior chamber and activated for 30 seconds. Following euthanasia and enucleation, the corneas were removed, stained with trypan blue/alizarin red, and photographed in a standardized manner (five X400 magnification photos from the center of each cornea). The ImageJ program was used to evaluate CEC damage and loss in the photographs.
resultsThe overall differences among the 3 groups regarding intact, damaged, and lost cells were statistically significant. However, by applying the Bonferroni correction, only the post-hoc pairwise comparisons between groups 1 (phaco tip) and 2 (miCOR tip, half throttle, without lens agitator engaged) were statistically significant regarding the 3 above-mentioned parameters.Conclusion: miCOR is a handheld, finger-controlled lens removal device with a blunt and rounded tip that vibrates at a low frequency, using mechanical agitation for nuclear disassembly. This acute rabbit study suggests CEC damage from the device, when the lens agitator is engaged is comparable to that of standard torsional phacoemulsification.
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.