ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Effectiveness of Phaco-chop, Stop&Chop, and the nitinol filament nuclear disassembly techniques for dense cataract removal.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effectiveness and outcomes of three surgical techniques for dense cataract removal: Nitinol filament mechanical phaco-fragmentation (NFMP), Phaco-chop, and Stop&Chop by evaluating their impact on ultrasound energy consumption and key perioperative parameters.
methodsThis is a single-center non-randomized retrospective study of patients with dense cataracts who underwent phacoemulsification using NFMP, Phaco-chop, or Stop&Chop techniques. The primary outcome was cumulative dissipated energy (CDE). Secondary outcomes included aspiration time, irrigation fluid usage, phacoemulsification time, endothelial cell loss, and postoperative inflammation. Patients with endothelial cell counts < 2,000 cells/mm2, pseudoexfoliation syndrome, uncontrolled glaucoma, zonular weakness, or prior ocular surgeries were excluded.
resultsThe study included 105 eyes, distributed across three groups. Mean CDE was lowest in the NFMP group (7.90±3.16), followed by Phacochop (9.25±3.13) and Stop&Chop (10.79±3.94); a statistically significant reduction was found between NFMP and Stop&Chop (p < 0.05). Mean phacoemulsification time with NFMP was significantly shorter (40.31±31.71 s) than with Phaco-chop (79.18±34.20 s) or Stop&Chop (80.84±36.76 s) (p < 0.01).
conclusionsMechanical phaco-fragmentation with NFMP achieved significantly lower energy consumption compared to Stop&Chop, with safety and fluidics comparable to those of conventional techniques. These findings align with the existing literature, which shows the benefits of NFMP in challenging cataract cases; however, the magnitude and significance of the effects may vary depending on patient selection and cataract complexity. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.