ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Tissue Reactivity to, and Stability of, Glaucoma Drainage Device Materials Placed Under Rabbit Conjunctiva.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of a novel glaucoma drainage tube with a porous outer structure (GDTI-50H) in rabbit eyes.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2026Article
- Extrusion-Free Survival Following Glaucoma Drainage Device Surgery Using EverPatch PlusJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Diminished fibrotic encapsulation and comparable physicochemical properties of poly (styrene-Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- In vivo evaluation of a nanotechnology-based microshunt for filtering glaucoma surgery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Recent Advancements in Glaucoma Surgery-A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate tissue reactivity to, and the stability of, glaucoma drainage device materials placed under rabbit conjunctiva in vivo. Methods: Disks (diameter, 3 mm; thickness, ∼0.3 mm) fabricated from poly(styrene-block-isobutylene-block-styrene) (SIBS), silicone, stainless-steel, or glutaraldehyde cross-linked collagen (GACLC) were inserted under rabbit conjunctiva. Conjunctival and scleral sections obtained at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after surgery were immunostained for α-smooth muscle actin (SMA). The ratio of the maximum thickness of the α-SMA-positive conjunctiva to the scleral thickness (α-SMA/S ratio) was calculated. The in vivo stability of the drainage devices at 12 weeks after insertion was evaluated. Results: The mean α-SMA/S ratios of the SIBS and silicone groups were lower than that of the stainless-steel group at 4 weeks after surgery (P < 0.05), and that of the SIBS group was lower than that of the GACLC group (P < 0.05). The ratios at 8 weeks after surgery were lower in the SIBS and silicone groups than in the GACLC group (P < 0.01). The ratios at 12 weeks after surgery were lower in the SIBS and silicone groups than in the GACLC group (P < 0.05). The surface areas of GACLC disks explanted from conjunctivae were significantly lower than that of intact disks (P < 0.01). Conclusions: SIBS and silicon were highly biostable and exhibited less tissue reactivity than GACLC in vivo. Translational Relevance: Comparisons of materials using animal models can predict the clinical stability and safety of such materials in humans.
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.