ArticleJournal of ophthalmology2026
Yamane Technique Versus Prolene Mesh for Intraocular Lens Scleral Fixation in Aphakia.
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.
- Yamane Technique Versus Prolene Mesh for Intraocular Lens Scleral Fixation in Aphakia.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate transscleral prolene mesh in aphakic patients lacking capsular support by comparing this technique with the Yamane technique. Methods: A comparative, prospective, randomized study was conducted on 40 eyes of 40 patients who were aphakic without capsular support. Aphakia is either posttraumatic or after complicated cataract surgery with partial or total loss of capsular support. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups based on the surgical intervention they received: Group A (Yamane technique) and Group B (transscleral prolene mesh technique). All patients were followed up for 3 months after surgery. Postoperative visual acuity, refraction, IOL centration, and complications were documented during the follow-up period. Results: Patients in both groups were comparable for both ages, 55.78 (± 8.63) for Group A and 59.10 (± 9.95) for Group B, and gender. In Group A, 50% were males and 50% were females. In Group B, 60% were males and 40% were females. After excluding complicated cases, both groups were compared for preoperative and postoperative results (UCVA, BCVA, IOP, refractive errors, and IOL tilt). The two groups had no statistically significant differences ( Conclusion: The prolene mesh technique showed a considerable improvement in visual outcome compared to the Yamane technique and may even offer a safer option with fewer predictable complications.
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.