ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
Three-Dimensional Digital Visualization System-Assisted Vitrectomy for Infectious Endophthalmitis.
Article in Journal of ophthalmology, 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.
- Three-Dimensional Digital Visualization System-Assisted Vitrectomy for Infectious Endophthalmitis.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the surgical outcomes and assess the effectiveness of a three-dimensional digital visualization system (3DVS) versus traditional microscope-assisted pars plana vitrectomy in the management of infectious endophthalmitis. Methods: A retrospective case series study was conducted on 29 patients diagnosed with infectious endophthalmitis who underwent 23-gauge transconjunctival vitrectomy between 1 Jan. 2020 and 31 Aug. 2023. Of all these patients, 16 cases underwent vitrectomy-assisted by the 3DVS (3D group), and the other 13 cases by traditional microscope (eyepiece group). The main comparison focuses on the differences between the two systems in terms of operation time, the brightness of the endoillumination, complications, and preoperative and final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logMAR). Results: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups, with trauma being the most prevalent cause of infection (10 vs 8). The positive detection rate of pathogenic bacteria exceeded 40% in both groups (43.75% vs. 46.15%). The results showed that the incidence of complications, including high intraocular pressure (3 vs. 4) and retinal detachment (4 vs. 3), did not differ significantly between the groups (chi-square = 0.2857, Conclusion: The 3DVS provides comparable surgical outcomes to the traditional microscope, with the advantages of clearer intraoperative visualization, lower required illumination, and optimized ergonomic design. It is suitable for complex and prolonged endophthalmitis surgery, offering excellent safety and efficacy.
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.