ArticleKorean journal of ophthalmology : KJO2025
Traumatic Retinal Detachment: A Comparative Study in Closed and Open Globe Injuries.
Article in Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with traumatic retinal detachment (TrRD) based on the mechanism of ocular injury and identify prognostic factors associated with clinical outcomes. We hypothesized that open globe injuries would demonstrate worse clinical presentations and poorer functional outcomes compared to closed globe injuries.
methodsThis retrospective study included 98 eyes of 98 patients diagnosed with TrRD who underwent surgery, followed by a minimum of 6 months of postoperative observation. The eyes were categorized into two groups based on the mechanism of ocular injury: closed and open injuries. The clinical presentations and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were evaluated, and factors associated with anatomical and functional success were identified.
resultsOf the 98 eyes, 37 (37.8%) were classified as closed injury group and 61 (62.2%) as open injury group. Patients in the open group were more likely to exhibit vitreous hemorrhage (p = 0.003), subretinal hemorrhage (p = 0.003), and retinal incarceration than those in the closed group. Although there was no difference in the anatomical outcomes between the two groups, significantly more patients achieved functional success in the closed group than those in the open group (45.9% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.043). Anatomical success was associated with the absence of giant retinal tears, retinal incarceration, and proliferative vitreoretinopathy (≥grade B). Functional success was significantly associated with better baseline best-corrected visual acuity, intraoperative intraocular lens implantation, and no retinectomy during surgery.
conclusionsDespite the clinical presentation variations among patients with TrRD with closed and open injuries, there were no differences in anatomical outcomes between the two groups. Patients in the open group had poorer functional outcomes. By identifying specific prognostic factors associated with anatomical and functional success, this study provides evidence-based guidance for management and prognostication of patients with TrRD.
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.