ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparison of four different techniques for lenticule dissection in small incision lenticule extraction.
Article in International journal of 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the safety, efficacy, and technical demands of four lenticule-dissection techniques-dry dissection, continuous curvilinear lenticulorrhexis (CCL), wet dissection, and Viscoat-assisted dissection-in small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), and to identify the method that minimizes tissue damage while preserving corneal clarity and early visual quality.
methodsTwenty-eight eyes undergoing SMILE were assigned to four groups: dry dissection (
resultsMean anterior surface scores were: dry 10.87±1.28; CCL 13.60±0.51; wet 13.67±0.48; Viscoat 4.22±0.44. Mean posterior surface scores were: dry 10.87±1.53; CCL 13.60±0.63; wet 14.10±0.48; Viscoat 4.33±0.50. Lenticules obtained
conclusionWet dissection achieves lenticule surface quality comparable to CCL but with lower technical difficulty and without significant early postoperative adverse effects, making it a safe, effective, and easily adoptable option for lenticule separation in SMILE. Lenticule surface-quality scoring provides a practical surrogate for assessing tissue damage across dissection methods.
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.