ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2024
Efficacy of Emergency Penetrating Keratoplasty with Cryopreserved Human Donor Corneas.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo investigate the long-term outcomes of emergency penetrating keratoplasty using cryopreserved human donor corneas in the management of actual or imminent corneal perforation.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed of the treatment efficacy of emergency penetrating keratoplasty using a cryopreserved human donor cornea, in 14 eyes of 14 patients with corneal ulcers of different etiology. For comparison, the medical histories of 14 patients who had undergone penetrating keratoplasty with the same indication, but received a regularly processed human corneal graft, were retrospectively analyzed. In both groups, the primary endpoint for graft failure was repeat surgery, defined as the necessity for amniotic membrane transplantation, conjunctival flap, or repeat penetrating keratoplasty, during a follow-up time of maximally 12 months.
resultsThe difference in the need for repeated surgeries between the cryopreserved human donor cornea group and cultivated tissue graft group was not statistically significant (p = 0.835). Specifically, repeat complex surgery of any kind within 6 months was necessary in 50% of the cryopreserved cornea group and in 57.1% of the control group, with no further surgical interventions during the remainder of the follow-up period. However, repeat penetrating keratoplasty occurred more frequently in the cryopreserved cornea group (n = 5) than in the control group (n = 1) during the first 12 months after treatment (p = 0.048).
conclusionCryopreserved corneas appear to be a viable option for promptly addressing emergencies and stabilizing the corneal situation, providing a faster solution compared to waiting for fresh tissue availability. However, repeat penetrating keratoplasty is more frequent when cryopreserved human donor corneas are used. Cryopreserved human donor corneas may be useful if surgical treatment is urgent and alternative options, such as tissue use, a conjunctival flap, or multilayer amniotic membrane transplantation, are not available.
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.