Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38938986›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024

Storage-induced mechanical changes of porcine lenses assessed with optical coherence elastography and inverse finite element modeling.

Vahoura Tahsini, Iulen Cabeza Gil, Sabine Kling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Vahoura TahsiniARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Iulen Cabeza GilAragón Institute of Engineering Research (i3A), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Sabine KlingARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In an effort of gaining a better understanding of the lens mechanics, Methods: A total of 81 freshly enucleated porcine eyes were obtained and divided into six groups and preserved differently. In the first three groups, the lens within the intact eye was preserved for 24 h by: (i) freezing at -80°C (n = 12), (ii) freezing at -20°C (n = 12), and (iii) refrigeration at +8°C (n = 12). In the remaining groups, the lenses were immediately extracted and treated as follows: (iv) kept intact, no storage (n = 12), (v) decapsulated, no storage (n = 21), and (vi) immersed in Minimum Essential Medium (MEM) at +8°C (n = 12) for 24 h. Frozen lenses were thawed at room temperature. Each lens was compressed between two glass lamella and subjected, first to a period of relaxation during which the compression force was recorded and second to an oscillating micro-compression while the deformation was recorded with a total of 256 subsequent B-scans via optical coherence tomography. The corresponding axial strain was retrieved via phase-sensitive image processing and subsequently used as input for an inverse finite element analysis (iFEA) to retrieve the visco-hyperelastic material properties of the lenses. Results: After freezing at temperatures of -80°C and -20°C, the cortical strains increased by 14% ( Discussion: Combining iFEA with optical coherence elastography allowed us to identify important changes in the lens mechanics induced after different preserving

Indexed as

crystalline lenshyperelastic materialinverse finite element analysisoptical coherence elastographypreservation condition

Identifiers

PMID38938986
PMCPMC11208870

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.