ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Evaluation of retina specialist's "inherent" familiarity with a new scleral buckle design and material, and their opinions on suturing the buckle for its intended purpose.
Article in International ophthalmology, 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
purposeTo assess the ease with which retina specialists can place a new titanium scleral buckle designed to indent the posterior pole of the eye.
methodsTen retina specialists with prior experience in placing scleral buckles for retinal detachment repair were selected. Participants sutured a titanium scleral indentation implant (macular buckle, MB) which differs in design and material from commonly used silicone buckles. The new design specifically targets indentation of the posterior pole of the eye, a task that is more difficult to achieve with existing silicone buckles. The study was conducted using pig eyes as a model. Surgeons were given instructions and provided with proper surgical materials. The time taken for each participant to complete the task was recorded. Participants each completed a usability questionnaire after task completion, which focused on the implant's ease of use, intuitiveness, and the need for additional instructions.
resultsAll participants completed the task in under 10 min with a median completion time of 5 min [IQR: 5-7.5], and a range of 5-10 min. Participants found the MB intuitive and as easy, if not easier, to suture than existing radial silicone buckles. This ease was attributed to the buckle's design, which naturally indented the posterior pole without additional manipulation.
conclusionThe study demonstrated that the new titanium MB effectively meets user needs, offering a technique very similar to existing methods but with the advantage of easier posterior pole indentation. The findings highlight the importance of careful suture placement and alignment to maximize procedural efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42547652What 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.