ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2026
Comparison of 2.2 mm vs. 2.6 mm corneal incisions in phacoemulsification in hard nuclear cataracts: impact on intraoperative energy and postoperative corneal recovery.
Article in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study sought to evaluate the differential impacts of two corneal incision sizes, 2.2 mm and 2.6 mm, on the utilization of intraoperative ultrasound energy and the subsequent postoperative corneal recovery in patients presenting with hard nuclear cataracts. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken, encompassing cataract patients classified with nuclear hardness grades III to V according to the Emery-Little classification. Participants were allocated into two groups based on the incision size: 2.2 mm and 2.6 mm. Key metrics, including endothelial cell density (ECD), central corneal thickness (CCT), incisional corneal thickness (ICT), and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), were assessed preoperatively and at intervals of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months postoperatively. Additionally, intraoperative phacoemulsification parameters and any complications were documented. Results: The study encompassed a total of 100 eyes, with 50 eyes in each group. No statistically significant differences were detected in cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) or ultrasound time (UST) between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both groups exhibited a significant postoperative decline in ECD (P < 0.05), yet no significant intergroup difference was observed in the magnitude of this reduction (P > 0.05). Central corneal thickness (CCT) and intraocular pressure (ICT) exhibited a statistically significant increase at both 1 day and 1 week postoperatively when compared to baseline measurements (P < 0.05). Notably, the increase in ICT was significantly more pronounced in the 2.2 mm incision group at both time points (P < 0.05). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) showed significant improvement in both groups following surgery (P < 0.05), with no significant intergroup differences observed at any follow-up interval (P > 0.05). Additionally, no significant difference in central corneal edema was detected between the two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The corneal incision size (2.2 mm versus 2.6 mm) did not influence the use of intraoperative ultrasound energy or result in differential corneal endothelial cell loss. However, smaller incisions (2.2 mm) were associated with increased short-term edema at the incision site, potentially impacting early wound healing.
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.