Evidence Hub

The effect of intraocular pressure during phacoemulsification in patients with either diabetic retinopathy or glaucoma; a randomized controlled feasibility trial

R. Raimondi, Karmen Sow, T. Peto, N. Wride, M. Habib, Alan Sproule, A. Muldrew, Michael Quinn et al.

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2025

70 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

To investigate whether performing phacoemulsification with a lower infusion pressure using the Centurion active sentry system affects surgical efficiency, complications and a range of clinical and imaging parameters compared to the higher pressures routinely used in patients with cataract and concomitant diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma. Sunderland Eye Infirmary, Sunderland, United Kingdom. Masked observer randomized controlled feasibility trial. Patients with cataracts undergoing routine phacoemulsification with either diabetic retinopathy or primary open-angle glaucoma of any severity were included and randomized to an infusion pressure of 30 (‘LOW’) or 60 (‘HIGH’) mmHg. All other fluidic settings were standardized. Surgical metrics and a range of imaging and clinical variables were measured pre- and postoperatively on days 1, 21 and 40. Seventy eyes from 70 patients underwent surgery and completed follow-up. Forty-one patients had diabetic retinopathy and 29 had glaucoma. There was no difference in any of the recorded surgical metrics including cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) between the two randomization groups (mean CDE 6.5 versus 6.1 percent seconds in the HIGH and LOW groups respectively, p = 0.68). There were no patients in either group with posterior capsule rupture or other intraoperative complications. There was no significant difference in the number of patients with raised intraocular pressure (IOP) on day 1. Seven (21.2%) patients in the LOW and 5 (13.3%)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 70 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