Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42845596›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026

Enhanced efficiency and endothelial protection of the intraocular lens shell technique in phacoemulsification: a retrospective stratified analysis by nuclear hardness.

Huizhen Wang, Haibo Deng, Guizhen Pan, Liyuan Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in 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.

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

4 authors.

Huizhen Wang *Department of Ophthalmology, Yingtan People's Hospital, Yingtan, Jiangxi, China.
Haibo Deng *Department of Ophthalmology, Yingtan People's Hospital, Yingtan, Jiangxi, China.
Guizhen PanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Yingtan People's Hospital, Yingtan, Jiangxi, China.
Liyuan ZhouDepartment of Ophthalmology, Yingtan People's Hospital, Yingtan, Jiangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The intraocular lens (IOL)-shell technique may improve intraoperative stability during phacoemulsification, but whether its benefits vary by nuclear hardness remains uncertain. This study evaluated the safety and efficiency of the IOL-shell technique and explored its effects across nuclear hardness subgroups. Methods: This retrospective study included 200 patients undergoing phacoemulsification: 100 treated with the IOL-shell technique and 100 treated with the conventional technique. Outcomes included operative time, cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), corneal endothelial cell loss, posterior capsule rupture (PCR), corneal edema, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1 month. Subgroup and interaction analyses were performed according to nuclear hardness (≥ Grade IV vs. ≤ Grade III). Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Compared with the conventional group, the IOL-shell group had shorter operative time (12.79 ± 2.00 vs. 15.13 ± 2.52 min, Conclusions: The IOL-shell technique improved surgical efficiency, reduced ultrasound energy use, enhanced endothelial protection, decreased corneal edema, and promoted early visual recovery after phacoemulsification. Its efficiency advantage was particularly evident in eyes with nuclear hardness ≥ Grade IV. The apparent reduction in PCR should be interpreted cautiously because of the limited number of events.

Indexed as

corneal endothelial cell losscumulative dissipated energyintraocular lens shell techniquenuclear hardnessphacoemulsificationposterior capsule rupture

Identifiers

PMID42845596
PMCPMC13641994

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.