ArticleEye (London, England)2016
MIRAgel: the immunohistochemical expression of CD3, CD34, and CD68 in the surrounding capsule.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of complex retinal detachment from intraocular invasion of MIRAgel-a case report.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2021Article
- Long term observation of hydrogel buckle intrusion without vision loss.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2021Article
- Histopathology of Hydrolyzed MIRAgel Scleral Buckles.Ocular oncology and pathology · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeTo study the immunohistochemical features of the capsule tissue surrounding MIRAgel episcleral buckles.Patients and methodsThis Institutional interventional clinical cohort study examined a consecutive series of 21 referred patients who required MIRAgel removal from July 2009 to July 2013. All patients with hydrated and fragmented MIRAgel episcleral buckles were included in this study. Capsule biopsies from MIRAgel episcleral buckles were obtained from all patients. Capsule specimens of seven patients with extruded silicone bands were processed as controls. Paraffin-embedded specimens were examined using light microscopy and immunohistochemistry (via the PAP horseradish peroxidase technique) to detect the expression of CD3, CD20, CD34 and CD68, and S-100 protein.ResultsInflammation with granuloma, which was primarily related to sutures, was found in all (n=36) of the MIRAgel specimens and foreign body granulomas with multinucleated giant cells, histiocytes, and macrophages (CD68+ cells) surrounded the MIRAgel fragments. Average number of CD68+ cells was higher (P<0.001) for MIRAgel than for silicone rubber. The lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate related to the MIRAgel fragments was CD3+ and CD20- (delayed T cell-mediated immune response). Moderate neoangiogenesis was indicated by the presence of CD34+ cells.ConclusionsThe immunohistochemical analysis revealed that the immune system is able to identify the fragments of MIRAgel (after its hydrolytic degradation) as a foreign body during a delayed T cell-mediated immune response. The phagocytosis by macrophages likely triggers and perpetuates local disease. Removal of MIRAgel explants before hydrolysis should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.