Evidence Hub

Impact of Phacoemulsification on Vitreomacular Traction Release and Complications

Bala S, Mohan N, Bellanda V, Arline A, Barbosa GCS, Schulgit M, Sharma S, Srivastava SK et al.

American journal of ophthalmology, 2026

249 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if phacoemulsification impacts vitreomacular traction (VMT) release and VMT-related complications.

DESIGN: Single-center, comparative, retrospective clinical cohort study.

SUBJECTS: A TOTAL OF: 310 eyes of 249 patients with a concurrent diagnosis of VMT and cataracts at the Cole Eye Institute between 2013 and 2024.

METHODS: Eligible eyes had at least 6 months of follow-up post-VMT diagnosis or phacoemulsification. The control group included eyes that did not undergo phacoemulsification after VMT diagnosis. Clinical information was collected via manual chart review. Characteristics of VMT were recorded via review of optical coherence tomography imaging.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the hazard of VMT release. Secondary outcomes included VMT-related complications, such as macular and lamellar hole formation, retinal detachment, and subsequent vitrectomy.

RESULTS: VMT release occurred in 49.4% of 310 eyes, with an average follow-up period of 136.7 ± 134.4 weeks. There was no significant difference in release between the phacoemulsification and control groups (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.861; P = .380). Among eyes that released, the mean time to release was 79.4 ± 68.8 weeks postsurgery in the phacoemulsification group and 76.0 ± 81.9 weeks from diagnosis in the control group (P = .785). In multivariate analysis, younger age at diagnosis (5-year aHR = 0.773; P < .001) and smaller adhesion diameter (per 100 µm aHR = 0.951; P = .017) were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 249 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free