Performance, safety and efficiency comparison between a 25G 20,000 and a 10,000 cuts per minute vitrectomy: a prospective randomized control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of 20,000 cuts per minute (cpm) with 10,000 cpm in vitreous cutters. METHODS: This was a prospective, parallel, single masked randomized control trial comparing the 25 gauge 20,000 cpm HYPERVIT Dual Blade from Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, TX, USA and 10,000 cpm ULTRAVIT vitrectomy cutter from Alcon Laboratories, Inc, Fort Worth, TX. Standard T-test by SPSS version 27 was used to compare efficiency and safety between two groups. RESULTS: In total 72 patients were recruited for the study and among them 71 patients completed the study. This study did not show any significant difference between 20,000 cpm probe and 10,000 cpm probe (p value = 0.347) for the core vitrectomy duration in all included eyes. The mean of core vitrectomy time was 269.28 s in the 25 gauge 20,000 cpm group and 289.44 s in the 25 gauge 10,000 cpm group. However, by comparing the two systems operated on epiretinal membrane eyes, 20,000 cpm probe had a significantly shorter mean core vitrectomy time than 10,000 cpm group (P = 0.03). The majority of all the patients had no intraoperative retinal tear (98.6.8%) and post-operative retinal tear (95.8%). There were no intraoperative iatrogenic breaks, and 3 postoperative retinal tears with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) were documented. All the retinal tears belongs to the 20,000 cpm group but no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of retinal tear and complications. CONCLUSIONS: 25-gauge 20,000 cpm Hypervit dual blade showed a faster trend in vitrectomy time although this was not statistically significant in all included eyes. By comparing vitrectomy time operated on epiretinal membrane eyes, a significant shorter time was found in 25-gauge 20,000 cpm. With more efficient and faster vitrectomy systems, the effect of surgeon factor likely plays a larger role. Our study suggest that the two devices may have a similar efficacy and safety. However, further studies may be needed to compare the core vitrectomy time between them after excluding the surgeon factor influence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".