ArticleLasers in surgery and medicine2026
Clinical and Histopathological Evaluation of Maximal and Supramaximal Energy Direct Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty (DSLT): A Rabbit Model Safety Study.
Article in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 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
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the clinical and histopathological effects of maximal available and supramaximal energy exposure in direct selective laser trabeculoplasty (DSLT®) on target and nontarget ocular tissues compared with selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) and sham treatments. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty eyes of 16 Dutch Belted Rabbits were allocated into seven groups: (A) Maximal energy DSLT exposure (2.6 mJ), (B) supramaximal energy DSLT exposure (3.5 mJ) with double nominal density spot spacing, (C and D) nontarget DSLT on sclera and iris at maximal and supramaximal energy, (E) SLT treatment at maximal energy (2.6 mJ), (F) SLT treatment with two overlapping shots at maximal energy (2.6mJ), and (G) sham control. The eyes were examined using a biomicroscope slit lamp, anterior segment OCT (AS-OCT), and a specular microscope at baseline, Day 1, and Weeks 1, 2, and 4 post-treatments. Histopathological evaluation was conducted on eyes enucleated on Days 1 and 29 posttreatment. The study was conducted at the Harlan laboratory, Ness-Ziona, Israel.
resultsAll DSLT and SLT laser treatments were uneventful. Minor acute responses were observed 1-day posttreatment at the slit lamp biomicroscopy exam, with similar DSLT and SLT responses. No significant clinical or histopathological findings were observed in any treatment groups at 29 days posttreatment. No notable findings indicative of damage to nontarget tissues were noted, including damage to the limbal stem cells.
conclusionDSLT treatment at the limbus, iris, and sclera yielded no significant clinical or histopathological changes compared to SLT or sham eyes, even with supramaximal energy and double-density exposures.
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.