ArticleOphthalmology science2026
Focused Ultrasound Treatment of Vitreous Hemorrhage in an In Vivo Rabbit Model.
Article in Ophthalmology 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate whether cavitation-based focused ultrasound (FUS) can safely accelerate vitreous hemorrhage (VH) clearance in an in vivo model of VH. Design: Preclinical randomized controlled trial. Subjects: New Zealand rabbits. Methods: Ten rabbits with unilateral experimental VH were randomized to receive FUS (n = 5) or sham treatment (n = 5). The fellow nontreated eye of each rabbit acted as intereye controls (n = 10). Each eye was serially examined until VH resolved, or up to a maximum of 3 months. At each follow-up, clinical examination with indirect ophthalmoscopy was performed which included clinical VH grading, fundus imaging, B-scan ultrasonography, and electroretinography (ERG). After the terminal follow-up, rabbits were sacrificed and enucleated eyes underwent histologic assessment. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was time-to-VH clearance based on clinical grading. Secondary outcomes included corresponding B-scan pixel intensity and ERG measurements. Any effects of FUS on nontarget tissues were further described with clinical examination and histologic assessments on enucleated eyes. Results: Five out of 5 eyes in the FUS-treated group had an immediate modification of the VH appearance on B-scan, with an average pixel intensity decrease of the VH area by 41 ± 10%. Kaplan-Meier analysis of VH clearance by clinical examination showed that 50% of the FUS-treated eyes reached complete VH clearance by week 3, and all cleared by week 6. Sham-treated eyes started to recover at week 10, and by week 12, probability of recovery was 75%. The difference of treatment effects between these 2 groups was significant (log rank test, Conclusions: This study demonstrates that cavitation-based FUS therapy accelerates VH clearance in a preclinical model when compared with natural reabsorption ("watchful waiting"). With further refinement of treatment protocol to enhance safety, these findings provide initial support for Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.