ArticleInternational journal of bioprinting2023
Personalized 3D-printed amniotic fornical ring for ocular surface reconstruction.
Article in International journal of bioprinting, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhibiting Postoperative Fibrosis in Glaucoma Filtration Surgery Through Porous PLLA/RGD Membrane Mediated Local/Sustained Delivery of Mitomycin C.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- Amniotic miracle: Investigating the unique development and applications of amniotic membrane in wound healing.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present work, we used three-dimensional (3D) printing technology to make a polylactic acid (PLA) amniotic fornical ring (AFR) for ocular surface reconstruction. This work is a retrospective and interventional case series of patients with ocular surface diseases who underwent either personalized 3D-printed AFR-assisted amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) or sutured AMT (SAMT). Patient epidemiology, treatment, operative duration, epithelial healing time, retention time, vision changes, morbidity, and costs were analyzed. Thirty-one patients (40 eyes) and 19 patients (22 eyes) were enrolled in the 3D-printed AFR group and the SAMT group, respectively. The clinical indications of AFR and SAMT were similar, such as corneal and/or conjunctival epithelial defects due to chemical burns, thermal burns, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). The mean dissolution time was 15 ± 11 days in the AFR group, compared with 14 ± 7 days in the SAMT group. The percentage of healed corneal area was 90.91% (66.10%-100.00%) for AFR and 93.67% (60.23%-100.00%) for SAMT. The median time for corneal epithelial healing was 14 (7-75) days in the AFR group and 30 (14-55) days in the suture AMT group. There were no significant differences in the initial visual acuity, final visual acuity, or improvement in visual acuity between the two groups. The operation duration in the AFR group was significantly shorter than that in the SAMT group. Regarding the cost analysis, the average cost per eye in the AFR group was significantly lower than that in the SAMT group. Furthermore, 3D-printed and sterile AFR showed no obvious side effects on the eyes. Our results suggested that 3D-printed PLA scaffolds could be used as an AFR device for ocular surface disease. In addition, personalized 3D-printed AFR is superior to conventional AMT in operation duration and cost effectiveness, thereby reducing the financial burden on our health care system.
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.