SynthesisGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Outcomes of dacryocystorhinostomy with or without stent Insertion-A systematic review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. 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.
- Selective potassium titanyl phosphate laser-assisted endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with cyanoacrylate flap fixation: A prospective comparative study.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether stent placement improves the surgical success of dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR), considering different approaches and stenting durations.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCR with and without stent insertion. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) fixed-effect model, as heterogeneity was negligible (I²<0.1%). Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare surgical approach (external, endoscopic, and laser-assisted) and stenting duration (≤ 6 weeks vs. >6 weeks). Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I² statistics. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias were also evaluated.
resultsEighteen RCTs involving 1,517 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that stent placement significantly improved the DCR success rate compared to non-stented DCR (OR = 1.691; 95% CI: 1.196-2.391; p = 0.003). The average success rates were 92.6% and 88.2% in the stented and non-stented groups, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed significantly better outcomes in external DCR with stenting but not in endoscopic DCR. A shorter stenting duration (≤ 6 weeks) also showed significant benefit over non-stented procedures, whereas longer duration (> 6 weeks) did not. Heterogeneity was low (I²<0.1%), and sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings.
conclusionsStented DCR significantly enhanced surgical success in external approaches, while internal approaches lack significant difference and evidence for laser-assisted DCR remains limited. Also, a shorter stenting duration appears to be associated with a higher success rate while potentially minimizing complications according to prior evidence, although the optimal duration remains uncertain. Further research is needed to clarify the efficacy of stenting in laser-assisted DCR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41217508What 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.