ArticleXenotransplantation2017
Development of retrocorneal membrane following pig-to-monkey penetrating keratoplasty.
Article in Xenotransplantation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corneal xenotransplantation: Where are we standing?Progress in retinal and eye research · 2021Review
- Reducing porcine corneal graft rejection, with an emphasis on porcine endogenous retrovirus transmission safety: a review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2019Review
- Xenotransplantation: past, present, and future.Current opinion in organ transplantation · 2017Review
- Biocompatibility of Genetically-Engineered Pig Cornea in Corneal Xenotransplantation: Preliminary In Vitro Study.XenotransplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recent reports of long-term survival after wild-type (WT) pig-to-monkey corneal xenotransplantation are encouraging. We experienced the rapid development of retrocorneal membranes, a rare complication after corneal allotransplantation (although seen in infants and young children). The original specific aim of the study was to determine the factors associated with successful (young) pig corneal transplantation in monkeys. However, when it was obvious that retrocorneal membranes rapidly developed, our aims became to determine the factors involved in its development after both WT and Genetically engineered (GE ) pig corneal xenotransplantation and to investigate the characteristics of the retrocorneal membrane. Rhesus monkeys were recipients of penetrating keratoplasty using WT and GE pigs (n=2, respectively, 1-3 months old). Local/systemic steroids were administered for 3 months. Grafts were evaluated by slit lamp for corneal transparency, edema, and neovascularization. Hematoxylin and eosin, Masson trichrome staining, and immunohistochemical analysis were performed. Gal staining was also carried out to distinguish the origin of the membrane. All penetrating keratoplasty recipients developed fibrous retrocorneal membranes in the early post-transplantation period, regardless of whether the graft was from a WT or GE pig. There were no features of rejection, with no cell infiltrate in the graft or anterior chamber during the three-month follow-up. There was no difference in the clinical course between the two groups (WT or GE corneas). Immunohistochemistry indicated that the retrocorneal membranes were CK negative, α-SMA positive, and vimentin positive, suggesting that they were of fibrous (keratocytic) origin. Also, the membrane was Gal positive, suggesting that it is derived from pig cornea. Following pig-to-monkey corneal xenotransplantation, we report that retrocorneal membranes are derived from donor pig keratocytes. Prevention of retrocorneal membranes will be necessary to achieve successful corneal xenotransplantation.
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.