ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Intraocular Pressure Spikes Following Cataract Extraction: Hydrophobic vs Hydrophilic Acrylic Lenses.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the intraocular pressure (IOP) changes after cataract extraction (CE) with an acrylic hydrophobic EyeCee One versus a hydrophilic Akreos MI60 intraocular lens (IOL) implant. Methods: All patients who underwent CE with acrylic EyeCee One IOL implant and Akreos MI60 IOL implants were included. Parameters such as age, sex, history of glaucoma or ocular hypertension (OHT), IOP, axial length (AXL), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and type of IOL implant were measured. Results: A total of 193 eyes of 193 patients were included. Of them, 115 eyes underwent CE with EyeCee One IOL, while 78 eyes underwent CE with Akreos MI60 IOL. Mean age (± SD) was 76.1 (± 9.4). A preoperative diagnosis of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT) was found in 10.9% and 3.6%, respectively. Mean pre-operative IOP was 16.8 ± 4.1. Mean IOP reduction at 2 months follow-up after CE was 2.8 ± 3.7 mmHg in the Akreos group and 0.3 (± 4.3) in the Eye Cee One group (<0.001). Five patients who underwent EyeCee One IOL implant had IOP rise ≥ 10 mmHg at 2 months follow-up, whereas none of the patients in the Akreos MI60 group had IOP spikes. Age and type of IOL implant were associated with greater IOP reduction in both univariable and multivariable analyses. Conclusion: CE with acrylic hydrophobic EyeCee One IOL implant was associated with more IOP spikes compared to the acrylic hydrophilic Akreos MI60 IOL implant. Further studies are warranted to clarify the association between IOP and IOL implants.
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.