ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Comparing Post-Occlusion Surge at Decreasing Intraocular Pressures with Pressure Sensing Handpiece.
Article in Medical devices (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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare post-occlusion surge pressure at various intraocular pressures using the Active Sentry handpiece. Methods: This experimental (in vitro chamber) study used the Alcon Centurion platform and Active Sentry handpiece with balanced tips. Quad preset was used with settings: vacuum 500 mmHg, aspiration flow 50 mmHg, and IOPs of 30, 50, and 70 mmHg. A rubber disk was fixed within a sealed chamber fitted with an electric pressure sensor to monitor pressure changes. The phacoemulsification tip was inserted into the water-tight port of the pressure chamber, and the foot pedal was set to position two. The tip was put in contact with the disk to replicate tip occlusion and pulled from the disk to simulate occlusion break. Ten trials were performed at each IOP; pressure changes were recorded continuously. Results: At 70 mmHg IOP, average post-occlusion surge magnitude was 5.76 mmHg ± 0.54; average surge duration was 0.45 s ± 0.10. At 50 mmHg IOP, surge magnitude was 5.76 mmHg ± 1.15; surge duration surge was 0.52 s ± 0.23. At 30 mmHg IOP, surge magnitude was 10.46 mmHg ± 2.86; surge duration was 1.27 s ± 0.51. There was a statistically significant difference between surge magnitude and duration at 30 vs. 50 mmHg IOP (P < 0.05) and at 30 vs. 70 mmHg IOP (P < 0.05). Conclusion: When utilizing the Active Sentry handpiece, an increased surge risk was not observed when operative IOP was decreased from 70 mmHg to 50 mmHg. However, our data suggest that surge risk increases when operative IOP is decreased to 30 mmHg. The Active Sentry handpiece at 50 mmHg IOP would not introduce greater surge risk than at 70 mmHg IOP.
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.