ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2019
Electron Beam Irradiated Corneal Versus Gamma-Irradiated Scleral Patch Graft Erosion Rates in Glaucoma Drainage Device Surgery.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2019. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glaucoma drainage device erosion rescued with upper eyelid forniceal conjunctival pedicle flap.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of conjunctiva-related complications between scleral and corneal patch grafts in Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Preserved Corneal Lamellar Grafting Reduces Inflammation and Promotes Wound Healing in a Scleral Defect Rabbit Model.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPatch graft erosion and implant exposure is a known complication of glaucoma drainage device (GDD) surgery. Recently, electron beam (e-beam) irradiated corneal tissue ha s become available; however, limited data exist on the rates of erosion for e-beam irradiated corneal grafts compared to traditional scleral grafts after GDD surgery.
methodsThis retrospective study examines the records of 253 eyes from 225 adult subjects who underwent GDD surgery with either e-beam irradiated corneal or scleral grafts at the Casey Eye Institute by five surgeons between April 22, 2014 and October 11, 2017. Surgical procedures and the occurrence of graft erosion were determined using billing codes and verified by manual review of electronic health records.
resultsThe average age at the time of surgery was 61.3 ± 17.5 years (n = 200) and 60.8 ± 16.8 years (n = 53) for the e-beam irradiated cornea and sclera groups, respectively. The average follow-up time post-surgery was 416 ± 345 days and 495 ± 343 days for the e-beam irradiated cornea and sclera groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age, follow-up time, and glaucoma diagnosis between the groups; however, the e-beam irradiated cornea group was statistically more likely to have an Ahmed implant as compared to the sclera group. No erosion events were noted in either group.
conclusione-Beam irradiated corneal grafts were used 3.8 times more frequently relative to scleral grafts, yet there were no cases of graft erosion in either group during the follow-up period.
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.