Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Comparative Clinical Outcomes of Divide and Conquer and Tilt and Tumble Cataract Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical performance of the divide and conquer and tilt and tumble techniques in cataract surgery with respect to surgical efficiency, safety and energy usage. Setting: The research was conducted at two private clinics specialized in cataract surgeries located in the southern region of Sweden. Design: The study was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Methods: A total of 535 patients undergoing cataract surgery were randomized to either divide and conquer or tilt and tumble. Primary outcomes included total surgery time, phacoemulsification time, ultrasound time, cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) and intraoperative complications. Postoperative visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP) and, for a subset, central retinal thickness (CRT), were assessed at follow up. Results: Tilt and tumble demonstrated significantly shorter operation time, 4.68 compared to 6.50 minutes (p<0.001), phaco time 60 versus 148 seconds (p<0.001) and ultrasound time, 32 versus 40 seconds (p<0.001) compared to divide and conquer. Baseline characteristics, Energy expenditure (CDE), intraoperative complications and postoperative outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusion: Our results revealed that the tilt and tumble technique is notably swifter and demonstrates comparable safety, energy consumption and postoperative outcome compared to divide and conquer. This sheds light on the potential benefits of the tilt and tumble technique ultimately enhancing patient care.
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.