ArticleCureus2025
The Key to Phaco-Refractive Surgery: Does a Small Incision Make a Big Difference?
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To study and compare the efficacy of 2.8 mm single clear corneal incision versus 2.8 mm paired clear corneal incision on pre-existing astigmatism in patients undergoing phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Methods A prospective randomized double-blinded interventional comparative study was conducted at a tertiary healthcare center. The patients undergoing unilateral cataract surgery were divided into two groups: group A, patients undergoing phacoemulsification through a 2.8 mm single clear corneal incision (CCI), and group B, patients undergoing phacoemulsification through 2.8 mm opposite clear corneal incisions (OCCIs). Postoperative assessment was done at one day, one week, three weeks, and three months to note uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ophthalmic examination, corneal keratometry, and surgically induced astigmatism. Results A total of 130 eyes of 130 patients were included in our study. The change in corneal astigmatism was statistically significant (p = 0.04) in the paired OCCI group, while it was not statistically significant (p = 0.542) in the single CCI group at the end of three months. On comparing the change between the two groups, the paired OCCI group induced a greater degree of astigmatic change than the single CCI at three months, and it was statistically significant (p = 0.03). Conclusion There was a significant reduction in postoperative corneal astigmatism at three months with 2.8 mm paired OCCI, and the intergroup comparison was statistically significant. A 2.8 mm paired OCCI induces more surgical astigmatism at the end of three months than a 2.8 mm single clear corneal incision.
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.