ArticleBeyoglu eye journal2025
Comparison of Two Techniques in Phacoemulsification: Hydroimplantation and Viscoimplantation.
Article in Beyoglu eye journal, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare hydroimplantation and viscoimplantation techniques in phacoemulsification surgery by analyzing corneal tomography parameters and changes in intraocular pressure (IOP). Methods: This retrospective study included 74 eyes of 74 consecutive patients who underwent phacoemulsification surgery and implantation of a foldable intraocular lens (IOL). Each eye was assigned to either the viscoelastic material (VEM) group (VEM(+); (n=39) or the VEM (-) group (n=35). Accordingly, IOL implantation was performed with VEM (1.4% sodium hyaluronate; Protectalon, VSY, Turkey) in the VEM(+) group, whereas hydroimplantation without VEM was used in the VEM (-) group. Post-operative examinations were performed on post-operative days 1, 3, and 7, and at 1 month. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in IOP between the VEM(+) and VEM(-) groups before surgery or at any post-operative time point except at 24 h. At 24 h postoperatively, the VEM(+) group had a significantly higher IOP compared to the VEM(-) group (p=0.010). In addition, the central corneal thickness at 1 month was significantly higher in the VEM(+) group than in the VEM(-) group (p=0.027). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in best corrected visual acuity, anterior chamber depth, and axial length. There was no posterior capsule rupture or zonular dialysis in either group. Conclusion: Phacoemulsification using the hydroimplantation technique appears to be a safe and feasible approach that may help mitigate early post-operative IOP elevation; however, assessing corneal endothelial cell function by specular microscopy would be important for a more comprehensive safety comparison between techniques.
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.