ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Comparative analysis of refractive outcomes and incidence of iris-optic capture in sutured versus sutureless scleral fixation intraocular lens techniques.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- Recurrent Iris Capture after Iris Suturing following Scleral-Sutured Intraocular Lens Fixation: A Case Report.Case reports in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared postoperative refractive outcomes and iris-optic capture incidence between sutured scleral intraocular lens (SF IOL) fixation and sutureless intrascleral haptic fixation (Yamane technique).
methodsA retrospective analysis involved two SF IOL groups: sutured (32 eyes) and sutureless (68 eyes). Primary outcomes were spherical equivalent (SE) difference from target at 2 months and final follow-up, and iris-optic capture occurrence. A surgeon subgroup analysis for the sutureless technique was performed.
resultsThe sutured group showed a myopic shift from target (- 0.31 ± 0.80 D at 2 months), while the sutureless group had a slight hyperopic shift (0.14 ± 0.69 D). This persisted at final follow-up (sutured: -0.23 ± 0.82 D; sutureless: 0.19 ± 0.69 D). Iris-optic capture occurred in 12.5% (sutured) versus 1.5% (sutureless), a significant reduction. Surgeon subgroup outcomes for the sutureless technique were similar.
conclusionsThe sutureless SF IOL technique provided stable refractive outcomes closer to target and significantly reduced iris-optic capture compared to the sutured method. These benefits likely stem from more anatomical IOL optic positioning achievable with the sutureless approach.
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.