ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
In-bag vs out-of-bag intraocular lens implantation for ectopia lentis: prospective comparative study.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the effects of the 2 surgical methods on the short-term and long-term visual outcome of patients with congenital ectopia lentis (CEL).
settingEye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
designProspective comparative study.
methodsAll patients were divided into 4 groups according to age and operation method: children underwent in-bag or out-of-bag surgery and adult underwent in-bag or out-of-bag surgery. They were followed up 1 month, 3 months, and every 6 months postoperatively. Their corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), axial length (AL) growth, prediction error (PE), and other parameters were recorded, compared, and analyzed.
resultsThere was no significant difference between CDVA and PE in the same age group compared by surgical methods. CDVA in adults was better than that in children, but greater myopic drift occurred in PE. In general, CDVA of the 4 groups all showed a trend of improvement with the addition of follow-up years, while PE increased gradually. The rate of AL growth was lower in patients undergoing in-bag surgery than in patients undergoing out-of-bag surgery.
conclusionsBoth in-bag and out-of-bag surgeries are safe and effective for patients with CEL. CDVA and PE were not affected by the type of surgery and were only related to the patient's age. However, the growth rate of AL will slow down in in-bag surgery. No matter children or adults, half a year after surgery is the window period for recovery, and active amblyopia training has significant implication for the recovery of visual quality.
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.