ReviewVeterinary ophthalmology2025
Reconstruction of deep and perforating corneal defects in dogs-A review (Part II/III): Biomaterials and keratoprosthesis.
Review in Veterinary ophthalmology, 2025. 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.
- Biosynthetic Collagen-Analog Hydrogels Stimulate Endogenous Regrowth of Rabbit Corneas: A Pilot Study.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Reconstruction of deep and perforating corneal defects in dogs-A review (Part II/III): Biomaterials and keratoprosthesis.Veterinary ophthalmology · 2025Review
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 surgical reconstruction of severe corneal ulcers is a common and crucial component of the clinical practice of veterinary ophthalmology. Numerous surgical techniques are used in dogs for corneal reconstruction, and these techniques may be categorized by the material used to repair the corneal lesion. The first part of the present review described procedures that utilize autogenous ocular tissues, homologous donor tissues, and heterologous donor tissues. In this second part of the review, the categories of biomaterials and keratoprosthetics will be summarized. Biomaterials that are reported for use in dogs include amniotic membrane, porcine urinary bladder acellular matrix, porcine small intestinal submucosa, acellular porcine corneal stroma, and other miscellaneous soft tissue and cartilage grafts (e.g., preserved equine renal capsule, autologous omentum, autologous buccal mucosa membrane, bovine pericardium, and homologous peritoneum). Descriptions of keratoprosthesis surgery in dogs are currently limited, but the use of artificial corneal transplants hold promise for dogs with severe, vision-compromising corneal disease that is not amenable to other reconstruction techniques. This review describes the results of experimental studies evaluating these graft materials in dogs, and it will summarize the findings and outcomes of the clinical articles published in each material category. Reporting inconsistencies and areas where additional research is required will be highlighted to help guide future studies in this area. A major aim of this review is to help identify potential subjects that could be evaluated in future investigations and that might lead to refinements in clinical practice.
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.