ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Assessment of biosafety and implantation feasibility of novel phakic refractive lens.
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.
- Long-term observation of the in vivo safety of a new design of phakic refractive lens.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Feasibility of smart intraocular lens.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe investigated the biosafety and implantation feasibility of a new phakic refractive lens (PRL) in rabbit eyes.
methodsShort PRLs (S-PRLs), large PRLs (L-PRLs), and large-grooved PRLs (LG-PRLs), were prepared by molding medical-grade liquid silicon. The cytotoxicity and cellular adhesion of the PRLs was assessed in vitro. To assess implantation feasibility, the S-PRL, L-PRL, and LG-PRL were implanted in the posterior chamber of rabbit eyes and the relative position was assessed by optical coherence tomography. The intraocular pressures (IOP) were compared between the S-PRL, L-PRL, LG-PRL, and control groups to evaluate the PRL biosafety after implantation.
resultsThe in vitro assays showed that cell viability and cellular adhesion in the S-PRL, L-PRL and LG-PRL groups was not significantly different to those in the control group throughout the study. After implantation into the posterior chamber of rabbit eyes, there were no obvious signs of inflammation or increases in IOP at each time point relative to the control group, demonstrating good biosafety of the PRL. The relative positions of the L-PRLs and LG-PRLs in the posterior chamber were appropriate and the retention frequencies were high.
conclusionsThe newly developed LG-PRL showed good biosafety with negligible in vitro cytotoxicity, ocular inflammation, or fluctuations in IOP. The LG-PRL provided the best implantation feasibility. The grooves on the LG-PRL provided channels for aqueous humor circulation. The LG-PRL is a promising type of PRL with an appropriate size and surface structure for effective correction of refractive errors in rabbit eyes.
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.