ArticleScientific reports2024
The role of graft cross-linking during keratoplasty in patients with corneal melting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- [Anti-infectious cross-linking: when and how? : PACK-CXL as treatment option for infectious keratitis].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- The Critical Role of Oxygen Supplementation in Epithelium-On Corneal Cross-Linking: A Narrative Review.Advances in therapy · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of corneal crosslinking (CXL) of grafts during keratoplasty (KP) in patients with refractory corneal melting (CM). This is a retrospective case series reporting the clinical outcomes of patients who received a crosslinked corneal graft during penetrating or deep anterior lamellar KP for refractory infectious or sterile CMs. Outcome measures were the recurrence of CM, the time required for epithelial healing following KP, incidence of complications, and necessity for re-transplantation. Twenty eyes of 18 patients with a follow-up of 29.2 ± 15.8 months were included in this study. All but two eyes had undergone previous KPs during the course of their disease (mean 1.9 ± 1.6). After CXL-enhanced KP, three eyes (15%) experienced recurrence of CM, three eyes developed an infectious keratitis and six eyes (30%) required a re-transplantation (three of them within 12 months). The mean time to epithelium closure after CXL-enhanced KP was 63 ± 90 days. The number of postoperative re-transplantations was significantly lower than the number of KPs performed before the CXL-enhanced transplantation (before CXL 1.9 ± 1.6 vs after CXL: 0.3 ± 0.57, p = 0.002). To conclude, CXL of the graft at the time of keratoplasty decreased the need for re-transplantations. However, further studies are needed in order to establish its role in the management of severe CM necessitating therapeutic corneal transplantation.
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.