ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Conjunctival changes following Muller's muscle conjunctival resection.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Müller muscle-conjunctival resection in modern ptosis surgery: patient selection, technical refinements, and expanding indications.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Comparison of clinical outcomes of conjunctivo-mullerectomy for varying degrees of ptosis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the conjunctival changes, especially goblet cell populations, following Muller's muscle conjunctival resection (MMCR) by histologically evaluating pre and post-MMCR specimens.
methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of conjunctival samples sent for histologic evaluation from two patient populations: those who had previously undergone a MMCR and required repeat surgery and controls who underwent a MMCR surgery in a previously unoperated eyelid. Specimens underwent hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining to accentuate goblet cell identification and were evaluated by two ocular pathologists to quantify goblet cell populations and note other anatomical changes. Statistical analysis of goblet cell populations was then performed.
resultsFour samples were identified for each group: (1) post-MMCR and (2) control. The mean age was 67 years in the post-MMCR group and 66 years in the control group. The mean goblet cell population was 7 ± 5 cells/mm in the post-MMCR conjunctiva and was 39 ± 16 cells/mm in the control group, which was statistically significant (p = 0.01). Samples from both groups demonstrated scarring and inflammatory cell infiltrate.
conclusionsWhile there was a relative loss of goblet cell populations in the conjunctiva overlying the region of surgery following MMCR, the lack of dry eye symptoms or changes in tear production reported in prior studies suggests that there may be enough goblet cell population reserve in the remaining accessory lacrimal glands and in the unaltered conjunctiva to provide sufficient lubrication and ocular protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35094223What 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.