ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Response of the Rat Eye to Acute and Chronic Optic Nerve Pressure Modifications.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study examines whether the response of the rat optic nerve tissue to either acute or chronic intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation is affected when optic nerve sheath pressure is reduced via optic nerve sheath fenestration. Methods: In the acute study, Long Evans rats underwent optic nerve sheath fenestration and IOP elevation (10-80 millimeters of mercury [mm Hg]). Optic nerve tissue response was assessed using optical coherence tomography (OCT) at each IOP step and compared with naïve and sham operated eyes (n = 6/group). In the chronic study, three treatment groups (n = 10) were given a circumlimbal suture to induce ocular hypertension (OHT); the fenestration group (F + OHT group), the suture-only OHT group (OHT group), and the sham-fenestrated OHT group (SF + OHT group). Fenestration-only (n = 14) and age-matched naïve rats (n = 6) were also included. IOP was measured weekly, and OCT and electroretinography (ERG) were conducted at weeks 4 and 8 after surgery. After week 8, RBPMS stained cells were counted. Results: In the acute study, the fenestrated group showed greater posterior retinal surface deformation (P = 0.008) and retinal compression with IOP elevation (P = 0.009). In the chronic study, the F + OHT group showed greater retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thinning (P = 0.009) and worse ganglion cell function (P < 0.0001) compared with the control groups. RBMPS staining showed greater retinal ganglion cell (RGC) loss in the fenestrated group compared to the naïve group (P = 0.007) but not the F + OHT group (P = 0.051). Conclusions: Low optic nerve sheath pressure via optic nerve sheath fenestration exaggerates biomechanical and functional impacts of IOP elevation. These data provide insight into the role of cerebrospinal fluid pressure in glaucoma pathogenesis.
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.