ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Anterior chamber stability of a novel phacoemulsification machine through the slit side view method.
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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Comparison of 4D Phaco and Torsional Ultrasound Phacoemulsification Platforms: Association with Cumulative Dissipated Energy and Postoperative Inflammatory Response.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Bench Evaluation of Intraocular Pressure Control with Clinical Assessment of Anterior Chamber Stability of a Dual Peristaltic Phacoemulsification Device.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate anterior chamber (AC) stability of the UNITY Vitreoretinal Cataract System (UVCS) compared with the Centurion Vision System with ACTIVE SENTRY (CAS) using the slit side view (SSV) technique during a simulated occlusion break event.
settingZengyo Suzuki Eye Clinic, Kanagawa, Japan.
designExperimental study.
methods10 porcine eyes underwent testing with UVCS and CAS at intraocular pressures (IOPs) of 20, 30, and 40 mm Hg; vacuum limits of 550, 600, and 650 mm Hg; and an aspiration flow rate of 40 mL/min. Eyes with 2.4 mm incision were transferred to slitlamp. Continuous irrigation stabilized IOP before occlusion break which was simulated thrice. IOP changes and SSV images were recorded determining AC depth (ACD) changes, surge duration, and volume during an occlusion break event.
resultsACD change was significantly less with UVCS compared with CAS (0.15 ± 0.06 vs 0.43 ± 0.14 mm, P < .001). During occlusion break, minimum IOP was closer to baseline with UVCS vs CAS (19.1 ± 5.9 vs 26.9 ± 6.3 mm Hg, P < .001). Postocclusion break surge volume and duration were minimal with UVCS vs CAS ( P < .001), with mean recovery time ≤ 0.17 seconds with UVCS.
conclusionsUVCS maintained AC stability better than CAS during simulated occlusion break testing which may improve clinical outcomes, surgeon confidence to operate at lower IOP. Recovering from postocclusion break surge faster than reported human reaction times suggested UVCS compensated for fluctuations faster than the surgeon can react.
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.