Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26740609›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2016

Global cell-by-cell evaluation of endothelial viability after two methods of graft preparation in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.

Maninder Bhogal, Maria S Balda, Karl Matter, Bruce D Allan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Establishment of an Ex Vivo Human Corneal Endothelium Wound Model.Translational vision science & technology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Maninder BhogalDepartment of Corneal and External Disease, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK Department of Cell Biology, University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Maria S BaldaDepartment of Cell Biology, University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Karl MatterDepartment of Cell Biology, University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Bruce D AllanDepartment of Corneal and External Disease, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK Department of Cell Biology, University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
University College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0900098Medical Research Council MR/L002183/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 099173/Z/12/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo describe a novel method of global cell viability assessment for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and the comparison of two contemporary methods of donor tissue preparation.

methodsDMEK transplants were prepared using two different methods: liquid bubble separation and manual peeling (n=8 each group). Samples were incubated with Hoechst, calcein-AM and ethidium homodimer prior to mounting on a curved imaging chamber. Z-stacked fluorescence microscopy images were combined to produce an in-focus global image capable of resolving all cell nuclei. Image processing software was used to define a calcein-positive live cell area, count all cell nuclei within this area and subtract ethidium-positive dead cells to derive the total viable endothelial cell count. Corrected global cell density was calculated by dividing the number of viable cells by the graft area, which had been corrected for imaging a curved surface.

resultsCorrected global cell density was lower than the central endothelial cell density in both groups: 85.5% of the pre-preparation central endothelial cell density in the peel group and 75.8% in the bubble group. Corrected global cell density was significantly lower in the liquid bubble separation group than in the peel group (p=0.04).

conclusionsEye bank estimations of central endothelial cell density overestimate true cell density after graft preparation in DMEK. A peel method is less damaging and more consistent than a liquid bubble method. Cell loss correlated strongly with the degree of stromal hydration prior to bubble separation in the liquid bubble group.

Indexed as

Descemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyTissue DonorsAgedCell CountCell SurvivalCorneal Endothelial Cell LossCulture MediaEndothelium, CornealEye BanksHumansMiddle AgedOrgan Culture TechniquesTissue and Organ HarvestingCulture MediaCorneaEye (Tissue) BankingTreatment Surgery

Identifiers

PMID26740609
PMCPMC4819631
OpenAlexW2222199434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.