ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Continuous Intracorneal Ring Implantation in Keratoconus: Efficacy, Predictive Factors, and Complications.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. 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.
- Femtosecond laser-assisted intracorneal MyoRing explantation - A novel rescue technique.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the clinical outcomes, predictors of visual improvement and complications of continuous intracorneal ring (ICCR) implantation in patients with keratoconus and confirmed contact-lens intolerance (CLI). Methods: This nonrandomized, multi-centric, retrospective cohort study examined visual, keratometric and clinical outcomes evaluated after a minimum follow-up of 2 months. Among the inclusion criteria for the standard treatment group (STG) were corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) <20/25 Snellen, no central corneal scars, minimum corneal thickness >350µm, and central mean keratometry reading (meanK) <55 diopters. All other eyes were classified as non-standard treatment group. Results: A total of 118 eyes of 118 patients with aged 32 ± 11 years were included in this study. At a median follow-up of 161 days (interquartile range: 111-372 days) ICCR implantation improved the CDVA from a mean of 0.38 to 0.15 logMAR (p<0.0001). Our correlation analysis showed lower preoperative CDVA to be the single best predictor of CDVA improvement, with eyes of a CDVA of 20/80 or lower improving by 4.3 ± 2.0 lines on average. Eyes with a meanK >55 diopters gained 9.04±4.83 lines in UDVA and 2.86±3.09 lines in CDVA. However, postoperatively these eyes had a CDVA of 0.32±0.21 logMAR which is significantly inferior to the STG outcome (p=0.001372). Fifteen eyes (12.7%) had to undergo a ring exchange procedure because of refractive under- (9 eyes) or overcorrection (6 eyes). Two eyes (1.7%) experienced medical complications. Conclusion: This study confirms the inclusion criteria of ICCR implantation in KC eyes with CDVA <20/25 and CLI. Particularly in eyes with a preoperative CDVA <20/80 and a meanK <55 diopters, ICCR implantation should be considered due to its reversibility and low rates of serious complications. The main challenge remains in the low predictability of the magnitude of this improvement in eyes with CDVA >20/30.
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.