ArticleCureus2025
Enucleation and Evisceration: A 10-Year Analysis of Postoperative Complications and Sympathetic Ophthalmia Risk at a Major Australian Tertiary Hospital, With a Review of the Current Literature.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients undergoing evisceration: a six-year retrospective study in a tertiary referral center.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to compare postoperative outcomes between enucleation and evisceration surgery over a 10-year period at an Australian tertiary public hospital.
methodsRetrospective chart review of patients who underwent primary enucleation or evisceration surgery at the Princess Alexandra Hospital between 1st March 2014 and 1st March 2024. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 73 eyes remained in the study (45 evisceration; 28 enucleation).
resultsLarger-sized implants were used in the enucleation cohort compared to the evisceration cohort (p=0.011). Enucleation surgeries (35.7%) had more postoperative complications than the evisceration group (15.6%) (p=0.004). The enucleation cohort had a higher prevalence of implant complications (exposure or extrusion) (21.7%) compared to the evisceration cohort (3.1%) (p=0.029). The prevalence of implant complications between evisceration and enucleation was not statistically significant for birth sex, race, surgery indication, implant material, or implant size. There was no reported sympathetic ophthalmia (SO) in either cohort.
conclusionsThere was no reported SO among the two groups. Patients who underwent enucleation surgery were, however, significantly more at risk of experiencing a postoperative complication and implant exposure or extrusion. There is poor follow-up compliance in patients who have undergone anophthalmic surgery in the Australian public hospital system. Improving patient education and surgical guidelines may help achieve better postoperative outcomes and follow-up durations after anophthalmic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.