Hydrogenology
Hydrogenology editorial study record

Effects of Hydrogen in Prevention of Corneal Endothelial Damage During Phacoemulsification: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Igarashi T et al. · Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;207:10–17.

HumanOther formsPublished 2019
Study record, not medical adviceThis page reports one source and Hydrogenology’s source-text extraction. It does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person. Human, animal and laboratory evidence must not be treated as equivalent.
Source and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence stream

Human

Reported design

Prospective randomized double-masked paired-eye clinical trial

Research topic

Eye health

Administration classification

Other forms

Study result signal

Not reported in this record.

Outcome type

Not reported in this record.

Reported in the source

Methods at a glance

Population or model

Adults with bilateral cataracts undergoing phacoemulsification

Sample

32 patients; one eye randomized to H₂-dissolved irrigation and the fellow eye to conventional irrigation

Duration

Surgery with follow-up at day 1 and weeks 1 and 3

Intervention

Phacoemulsification using an irrigation solution saturated under a 100% H₂ atmosphere for 24 hours

Hydrogen form

H₂ dissolved in ophthalmic irrigation solution — H₂ only, not Brown’s gas and not inhalation.

H₂ specification

The article reports 61.9% H₂ saturation before use and 53.7% after 30 minutes of continuous irrigation; these are saturation percentages, not gas-mixture percentages or ppm.

H₂ flow

Not applicable — the reported 10 mL/min is liquid irrigation flow, not H₂ gas flow.

O₂ delivered with H₂

No O₂ was co-delivered as part of the H₂ intervention.

Comparator

Conventional irrigation solution in the contralateral eye

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

Corneal endothelial cell density and percentage endothelial-cell loss

Reported result

Endothelial-cell loss was lower with H₂ irrigation at day 1 (6.5% vs 16.0%, p=0.003), week 1 (9.3% vs 15.4%, p=0.039) and week 3 (8.5% vs 18.4%, p=0.004).

Results-extraction completeness

Intervention preparation, principal outcomes and follow-up checked in the open-access article; independent appraisal remains incomplete.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.

Interpretation limits

Cautions and applicability

Design and reporting cautions

Only 32 patients at one center, paired-eye design, three-week follow-up and a surrogate cellular endpoint. The H₂ concentration is reported as percentage saturation rather than ppm.

Applies directly to

Adults with bilateral cataracts undergoing this specific phacoemulsification protocol; not other eye diseases or systemic H₂ therapy.

Preliminary appraisal framework

Not reported in this record.

Preliminary risk-of-bias status

Not reported in this record.

Appraisal rationale

Not reported in this record.

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Certainty is assessed by important outcome across a complete eligible evidence set, not by attaching a final grade to one source.

Provenance

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 31077667 · DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.04.014

Publisher access

Open-access publisher article.

Extraction basis

Open-access publisher full text and PubMed bibliographic record.

Record revision

2026-08-10