ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2025
Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between a 25G 20,000 and a 10,000 cuts per minute vitrectomy: a prospective randomized control study.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2025. 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.
- COMPARATIVE FLOW AND OPERATING EFFICIENCY OF TWO-DIMENSIONAL CUTTING VELOCE 27-GAUGE VITRECTOME.Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Trial
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
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of 20,000 cuts per minute (cpm) with 10,000 cpm in vitreous cutters.
methodsThis was a prospective, parallel, single masked randomized control trial comparing the 25 gauge 20,000 cpm HYPERVIT Dual Blade from Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA and 10,000 cpm ULTRAVIT vitrectomy cutter from Alcon Laboratories, Inc, Fort Worth, TX. Standard T-test by SPSS version 27 was used to compare efficiency and safety between two groups.
resultsIn total 72 patients were recruited for the study and among them 71 patients completed the study. This study did not show any significant difference between 20,000 cpm probe and 10,000 cpm probe (p value = 0.347) for the core vitrectomy duration in all included eyes. The mean of core vitrectomy time was 269.28 s in the 25 gauge 20,000 cpm group and 289.44 s in the 25 gauge 10,000 cpm group. However, by comparing the two systems operated on epiretinal membrane eyes, 20,000 cpm probe had a significantly shorter mean core vitrectomy time than 10,000 cpm group (P = 0.03). The majority of all the patients had no intraoperative retinal tear (98.6.8%) and post-operative retinal tear (95.8%). There were no intraoperative iatrogenic breaks, and 3 postoperative retinal tears with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) were documented. All the retinal tears belongs to the 20,000 cpm group but no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of retinal tear and complications.
conclusions25-gauge 20,000 cpm Hypervit dual blade showed a faster trend in vitrectomy time although this was not statistically significant in all included eyes. By comparing vitrectomy time operated on epiretinal membrane eyes, a significant shorter time was found in 25-gauge 20,000 cpm. With more efficient and faster vitrectomy systems, the effect of surgeon factor likely plays a larger role. Our study suggest that the two devices may have a similar efficacy and safety. However, further studies may be needed to compare the core vitrectomy time between them after excluding the surgeon factor influence.
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.