Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42761682›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of ophthalmology2026

How much vitrectomy is enough? A narrative review.

Fatih Ali Ceylan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Fatih Ali CeylanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gaziantep City Hospital, Gaziantep 27630, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimal extent of vitreous removal in modern vitreoretinal surgery remains controversial. While extensive vitrectomy has traditionally been performed to minimize traction and reduce postoperative complications, emerging evidence challenges its routine use across all indications. This narrative review critically evaluates whether extensive vitreous removal provides superior outcomes compared to limited, vitreous-sparing approaches. Current data do not demonstrate a consistent or clinically meaningful advantage of extensive vitrectomy. Although broader vitreous removal may reduce residual traction, it is associated with increased intraoperative manipulation and a higher risk of iatrogenic retinal injury, particularly during peripheral vitreous shaving. In contrast, limited vitrectomy appears sufficient in macular surgery and selected cases of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, especially with advances in microincisional techniques, high-speed cutters and improved visualization systems. In complex tractional diseases, however, more extensive dissection may still be required. Overall, the available evidence supports a selective, pathology-driven approach rather than routine extensive vitreous removal, reflecting a shift toward more precise and minimally invasive vitreoretinal surgery.

Indexed as

complicationsmacular surgeryretinal detachmentsurgical techniquesvitrectomyvitreous

Identifiers

PMID42761682
PMCPMC13586953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.