ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020
Surface quality and endothelial cell viability after femtosecond laser-assisted donor lenticule preparation for endothelial keratoplasty - An
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Keratoplasty: A Narrative Review of Technological Evolution, Clinical Evidence, Implementation and Future Directions.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare surface quality and endothelial cell viability of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) donor lenticules prepared with femtosecond laser (FSL) or microkeratome (MK).
methodsExperimental ex-vivo evaluation of 15 DSAEK donor lenticules prepared from optical quality donor corneas using 200 KHz FSL (9 eyes) or MK (6 eyes). Surface quality and smoothness of the cut were assessed using atomic force microscopy and endothelial cell viability was assessed using transmission electron microscopy.
resultsMean lenticule thickness was 121.89 ± 17.13 μm in FSL group and 112.67 ± 5.89 μm in MK group (P = 0.33). Average roughness of stromal surface (RMSavg) [FSL- 30.51 ± 4.55 nm, MK-22.37 ± 1.83 nm; P = 0.02] and root mean square roughness (RMSrough) [FSL-31.39 ± 5.75 nm, MK-23.08 ± 0.40 nm; P = 0.012] was significantly more in FSL group. Increased granular and linear irregularities were observed in the FSL group. Endothelial cell disruption was more in FSL group (FSL- 29.49 ± 6.91% MK-13.28 ± 3.62%; P < 0.001) with decreased mean nucleus length (FSL-5.56 ± 0.17 μm, MK-7.52 ± 0.65 μm; P < 0.001).
conclusionAutomated MKs are still the standard of care for donor lenticule preparation and MK-assisted donor lenticules have smoother surface with less endothelial cell disruption than FSL. Further research is mandatory before FSL platforms can be considered a viable alternative to the MK.
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.