Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38619603›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2024

Transepithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy for treatment-resistant recurrent corneal erosion syndrome.

Mukhtar Bizrah, Maheshver Shunmugam, Geoffrey Ching, Radhika P Patel, Nizar Din, David T C Lin, Simon P Holland

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mukhtar BizrahImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Western Eye Hospital, 153-173 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5QH, UK. m.bizrah@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7173-6232
Maheshver ShunmugamThe Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Geoffrey ChingThe Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Radhika P PatelImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Western Eye Hospital, 153-173 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5QH, UK. Radhika.patel6@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3147-3452
Nizar DinImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Western Eye Hospital, 153-173 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5QH, UK.
David T C LinPacific Laser Eye Centre, Vancouver, Canada.
Simon P HollandThe Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CAImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBCanadian Sport Centre Pacific · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of trans-epithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy (TE-PTK) as a treatment for recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES) in patients with symptoms refractory to conventional treatments.

methodsAll patients who received TE-PTK treatment for RCES had failed 3 or more conventional treatments and were reviewed, and if met criteria, approved by healthcare workers of the British Columbia public health authority (Medical Services Plan (MSP). A retrospective chart review and telephone survey were conducted at the Pacific Laser Eye Centre (PLEC). Exclusion criteria were ocular co-morbidities potentially affecting treatment efficacy.

resultsThis study included 593 eyes of 555 patients (46.2% male; 50.9 ± 14.2 years old) who underwent TE-PTK. The leading identified causes of RCES were trauma (45.7%) and anterior basement membrane dystrophy (44.2%). The most common pre-PTK interventions were ocular lubricants (90.9%), hypertonic solutions (77.9%), and bandage contact lenses (50.9%). Thirty-six eyes had undergone surgical interventions such as stromal puncture, epithelial debridement, or diamond burr polishing. Post-PTK, 78% of patients did not require any subsequent therapies and 20% required ongoing drops. Six patients (1.1%) reported no symptom improvement and required repeat TE-PTK for ongoing RCES symptoms after initial TE-PTK. All 6 eyes were successfully retreated with TE-PTK (average time to retreatment was 11.3 ± 14.9 months). There was no significant difference in best corrected visual acuity pre- vs. post-operatively. The mean post-operative follow-up was 60.5 months (range: 5-127 months).

conclusionTE-PTK has a good efficacy and safety profile for treatment-resistant RCES. The third-party public health-reviewed nature of this study, the low recurrence rate of RCES, and the low PTK retreatment rate suggest that TE-PTK might be considered for wider use in the management of RCES.

Indexed as

Epithelium, CornealLasers, ExcimerPhotorefractive KeratectomyVisual AcuityAdultAgedCorneal DiseasesCorneal Dystrophies, HereditaryFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnterior basement membrane dystrophy (ABMD)Corneal erosionEpithelial debridementPhototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK)Recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES)Transepithelial PTK

Identifiers

PMID38619603
PMCPMC11458720
OpenAlexW4394819000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.