ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparison of the effects of single and opposite incision techniques on with-the-rule astigmatism in cataract surgery.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effects of single clear corneal incision (CCI) and opposite clear corneal incision (OCCI) techniques on corneal and total astigmatism in patients undergoing phacoemulsification cataract surgery.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 285 eyes of 285 patients with preoperative total astigmatism of 0.75-3.0 diopters and corneal astigmatism of 0.50-2.0 diopters. Patients were divided into two groups: OCCI (141 eyes) and CCI (144 eyes). All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon using a standardized phacoemulsification technique with 2.4-mm clear corneal incisions placed on the steep meridian. In the OCCI group, a second identical incision was created 180° opposite the primary incision. Corneal astigmatism, total astigmatism, spherical equivalent, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and intraocular pressure were evaluated preoperatively and during a minimum 12-month follow-up.
resultsPreoperative demographic and ocular characteristics were comparable between groups (all p > 0.05). Postoperatively, corneal astigmatism was significantly lower in the OCCI group compared with the CCI group (- 0.71 ± 0.48 D vs. -1.01 ± 0.56 D; p = 0.001). Total astigmatism was also significantly reduced in the OCCI group (- 1.19 ± 1.20 D vs. -1.51 ± 0.71 D; p = 0.004). Spherical equivalent and intraocular pressure did not differ significantly between groups. BCVA outcomes were comparable at all follow-up visits (p > 0.05). However, UCVA was significantly better in the OCCI group at 3 months (p = 0.047) and 12 months (p = 0.031).
conclusionsOpposite clear corneal incisions provide a stronger astigmatic corrective effect than single clear corneal incisions and result in superior uncorrected visual acuity at mid- and long-term follow-up. OCCI represents a simple, safe, and effective technique for correcting mild to moderate astigmatism during routine cataract surgery.
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.