Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40597864›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025

Clinical comparison of epiretinal membrane surgery using Sharkskin forceps versus conventional forceps.

Ting Yu, Yong Tao, Qiang Zhou, Xiaofeng Hu, Wen Hua, Zhuozai Xu, Shuo Yang, Li Chen

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ting YuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, South Road of Worker's Stadium, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Yong TaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, South Road of Worker's Stadium, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Qiang ZhouDepartment of Ophthalmology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, South Road of Worker's Stadium, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Xiaofeng HuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, South Road of Worker's Stadium, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Wen HuaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, South Road of Worker's Stadium, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Zhuozai XuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, South Road of Worker's Stadium, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Shuo YangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, South Road of Worker's Stadium, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Li ChenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.8, South Road of Worker's Stadium, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China. chenli_doctor@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate and compare the outcomes between eyes that underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for epiretinal membrane (ERM) using the Sharkskin forceps versus conventional forceps.

methodsThe prospective comparative study involved 38 eyes with ERM between November 2022 and May 2023. Nineteen eyes were treated with PPV and membrane peeling using the Grieshaber Sharkskin forceps, while the other 19 eyes were treated with conventional forceps. The number of grasps for initial membrane mobilization, duration for complete membrane peeling, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) before PPV and within three-month follow up, adverse events were recorded.

resultsAll patients successfully underwent ERM removal. The Sharkskin group completed membrane removal in 198.84 s with 8.21 grasps for initial membrane mobilization, compared to 250.95 s and 10.53 grasps in the conventional group (p

conclusionThe use of Sharkskin forceps in ERM surgery demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes to conventional forceps, while causing less retinal damage. These findings suggest that Sharkskin forceps can be safely and effectively utilized in vitreoretinal interface surgery.

Indexed as

Epiretinal MembraneSurgical InstrumentsVitrectomyAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment OutcomeVisual AcuityConventional forcepsEpiretinal membrane surgerySharkskin forceps

Identifiers

PMID40597864
PMCPMC12210765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.