ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Eye bank versus surgeon prepared Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty tissues: Influence on adhesion force in a pilot study.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Eye bank pre-stripped versus surgeon-stripped graft for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cell and tissue banking · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Graft Survival Rate Using Surgeon Cut versus Precut DSAEK Tissue.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Incidence and management of early postoperative complications in lamellar corneal transplantation.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Review
- Review for special issue: Corneal lamellar surgery: Present outcomes and future perspectives.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare the biomechanical properties of the eye bank-prepared and surgeon prepared Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) tissues.
methodsIn this laboratory study, corneal tissues for research were randomly allocated in the following groups: a) surgeon-cut DSAEK and b) eye bank-prepared (pre-cut and pre-loaded) DSAEK. Endothelial cell loss (ECL), immunostaining for tight junction protein ZO-1, elastic modulus, and adhesion force were investigated.
resultsECL was not found to be significantly different between surgeon-cut DSAEK (7.8% ±6.5%), pre-cut DSAEK (8.6% ±2.3%), and pre-loaded DSAEK (11.1% ±4.8%) (P = 0.5910). ZO-1 was expressed equally across all groups. Surgeon-cut DSAEK grafts showed a significantly higher elastic modulus compared to pre-cut and pre-loaded DSAEK groups (P = 0.0047 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Adhesion force was significantly greater in the surgeon-cut DSAEK compared to pre-cut (P < 0.0001) or pre-loaded DSAEK groups (P = 0.0101).
conclusionThe laboratory data on the biomechanics of DSAEK grafts suggests that surgeon-cut DSAEK grafts present higher elastic modulus and adhesion force compared to eye bank-prepared DSAEK grafts.
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.