ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
AI-Assisted UBM versus Conventional Sizing Approaches for ICL Implantation: A Retrospective Analysis of Vault Outcomes.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To compare the effectiveness of an ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM)-based nomogram with a white-to-white (WTW) nomogram in predicting postoperative vault in myopic patients undergoing implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation. Methods: This retrospective, single-center study included 227 eyes from 116 myopic patients (mean age 28.9 ± 7.3 years). ICL sizing was determined using either the WTW OCOS nomogram (WTW group, 117 eyes, 60 patients) or the UBM ICL Guru nomogram (UBM group, 110 eyes, 56 patients). Postoperative evaluation at 1 month included uncorrected and corrected visual acuity, refraction, anterior chamber depth, axial length, intraocular pressure, and vault. Results: Demographic data showed 56 patients (36% male, 64% female) had a mean age of 28.82 ± 7.73 for the UBM group and, among 60 patients (43% male, 57% female), had a mean age of 28.98 ± 6.88 for the WTW group. Postoperative uncorrected and corrected visual acuity and refractive outcomes were comparable between the UBM and WTW groups, with no statistically significant differences observed. Mean vault differed significantly among the groups. The UBM group showed a lower average vault (472.3 ± 170.0 μm) compared with the WTW group (560.4 ± 251.7 μm, p < 0.1). Undervault (<250 μm) occurred in 9.1% of UBM versus 11.1% of WTW eyes. Overvault (750-1000 μm) was less frequent with UBM (3.6%) than with the WTW group (14.5%). Seven percent in the WTW group had excessively high vaults of greater than 1000 μm, with 6 eyes undergoing ICL exchange. Prediction error with the UBM nomogram was within 383 μm across all eyes at 1 month. Conclusion: Visual and refractive outcomes were similarly good in both the WTW group and the UBM group. While visual outcomes were similar, the UBM based ICL Guru nomogram achieved more precise postoperative vaulting than the WTW-based OCOS method. OCOS resulted in more overvaults and ICL exchanges, making ICL Guru the superior choice for consistent, ideal vault targeting.
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.