ArticleCureus2026
Comparing the Efficacy Between Entry-Level Torsional and High-End Transverse Phacoemulsification Technologies.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
clinical relevanceWith the growing cost of equipment, uncompromised clinical care is paramount. The best possible scenario is an affordable device that delivers optimal results. Clinical studies demonstrating comparability between low-cost and high-end devices can help clinicians make informed decisions.
backgroundTo compare the intra-operative efficacy of two phacoemulsification technologies - torsional and transverse.
methodsThis was a prospective comparative study with systematic (quasi-random) allocation conducted at a tertiary eye care center. The study included 120 eyes from 112 patients with immature cataracts. Phacoemulsification was performed using either an entry-level torsional (Legion; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) or a high-end transverse (WhiteStar Signature Pro; Johnson & Johnson Vision, Inc., New Brunswick, NJ) machine by the same surgeon in patients assigned into two groups of 60 eyes each. Routine biometry, preoperative and postoperative day (POD 1, 30, and 90) examination on specular microscopy, pachymetry, and best-corrected visual acuity assessment were done. Intraoperatively, the mean surgical time and ultrasound time were noted. An independent, masked evaluator assessed the surgical videos.
resultsThe torsional system required 47.12% less ultrasound time (p < 0.001) and 5.15% less surgical time (p = 0.056) than the transverse system, with less chatter, better followability, and easier quadrant removal. There was no significant difference in postoperative visual outcomes or pachymetry measurements between preoperative and POD 1 or POD 30 in either group. Similarly, endothelial cell density changes from pre-op to POD 1, 30, and 90 were not statistically significant in both groups.
conclusionThe torsional phacoemulsification system required less ultrasound energy and a marginally shorter mean surgical time than the transverse system. The ease and efficiency of phacoemulsification, as measured by reduced chatter and better quadrant removal, were also better with the more affordable entry-level torsional system.
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.