ArticleRomanian journal of ophthalmology
Comparison Between 3D Heads-Up Display System and Standard Operating Microscope in Diabetic Vitrectomy for Tractional Retinal Detachment.
Article in Romanian journal of ophthalmology. 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
Background: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) remains a significant cause of vision loss worldwide, often requiring pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for tractional retinal detachment (TRD). The introduction of the 3D Heads-Up Display (HUD) system offers ergonomic and visualization advantages. Methods: This prospective interventional study involved eyes that underwent PPV for TRD. Group A underwent surgery using 3D HUD, while Group B utilised a standard operating microscope (SOM). Outcomes were assessed for surgical time, anatomical success, visual recovery, intraoperative variables, and postoperative complications. Results: The study included 94 eyes from 90 patients (47 eyes per group). Retinal reattachment was achieved in 100% of cases in both groups at 3 months postoperatively. Mean surgical time was significantly shorter in the 3D HUD group (51.50 ± 24.06 minutes) compared to SOM (67.33 ± 31.27 minutes; p = 0.004). Both groups significantly improved visual acuity, with the 3D HUD showing a superior mean LogMAR BCVA improvement at 3 months. Endoillumination levels were markedly lower with the 3D HUD, reducing the risk of phototoxicity. Surgeons reported greater depth perception, manoeuvrability, and teaching utility with the 3D HUD. Discussion: In this study, 3D HUD provided anatomical outcomes comparable to SOM while offering shorter surgical times, lower illumination requirements, and favourable visual recovery. These advantages likely stem from enhanced depth perception and improved ergonomics inherent to the 3D system. Overall, our findings support 3D HUD as a safe and efficient alternative for managing complex TRD cases. Conclusions: The 3D HUD system demonstrated comparable anatomical success, shorter surgical times, enhanced ergonomic benefits, and favourable visual outcomes compared to SOM.
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.