ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Outcomes of Pars Plana Vitrectomy Versus Combined Vitrectomy With Phacoemulsification in Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and Cataract.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) often requires pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for complications such as vitreous hemorrhage and tractional retinal detachment. Cataract progression following PPV is common, and the role of combined PPV with cataract extraction (PPVCE) remains debated. This study aimed to compare visual outcomes and post-operative complications between PPV alone and PPVCE in patients with PDR and coexisting cataract. Methods This retrospective observational study was conducted at Hospital Sultanah Bahiyah, Kedah, Malaysia, and included diabetic patients with PDR and coexisting cataract who underwent either PPV alone or PPVCE. Pre-operative and post-operative data were collected, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and post-operative complications. The main outcome measures were a change in BCVA and the incidence of post-operative complications. Comparative statistical analyses were performed between the two groups. Results A total of 115 eyes were evaluated (PPV=43; PPVCE=72), with a mean follow-up period of 1.27 years. The PPVCE group was significantly older than the PPV group (49.22 vs 43.30 years, p=0.01). Both groups demonstrated improvement in BCVA, with no significant between-group difference in final BCVA at last follow-up (p=0.44). Significant visual improvement was observed in vitreous hemorrhage (VH) cases compared to tractional retinal detachment (TRD). Notably, 48.8% of patients in the PPV-alone group required subsequent cataract extraction during follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates, including ocular hypertension and neovascular glaucoma, between the two groups (p=0.33 and p=0.53, respectively). Conclusion PPV and PPVCE provide comparable visual and safety outcomes in patients with PDR and cataracts. However, the high rate of subsequent cataract surgery following PPV alone suggests that a combined approach may reduce the need for re-operations and improve overall patient management in appropriately selected patients.
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.