ArticlePloS one2024
Visual outcomes of primary keratoprosthesis implantation in transplant-naïve eyes.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrimary keratoprosthesis (Kpro) implantation may be indicated in eyes that have an expected poor prognosis following initial penetrating keratoplasty, such as eyes with limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD). We compare visual outcomes of eyes undergoing primary Kpro to eyes that had a secondary Kpro following penetrating keratoplasty.
methodsRetrospective review of all patients who had Kpro implantation at a tertiary academic medical center from 2005-2020. Among those, eyes that had undergone primary Kpro implantation without a history of prior corneal transplantation were also identified.
resultsEighty-four eyes of 77 patients that had undergone Kpro implantation were identified. Of those 84, 12 eyes (21.4%) of 12 patients were receiving primary Kpro since they were corneal transplant-naïve. Among individuals undergoing primary Kpro implantation compared to secondary Kpro implantation, the most common underlying diagnoses were limbal stem cell deficiency (41.7% vs 10.0%, p = 0.01304), corneal scarring not otherwise specified (25.0% vs 2.86%, p = 0.02077), and neurotrophic cornea (16.7% vs 2.86%, p = 0.1002). Eyes undergoing primary Kpro implantation had similar mean visual acuity to eyes undergoing secondary Kpro preoperatively (20/2118 vs 20/3786, p = 0.271), 3 months postoperatively (20/264 vs 20/758, p = 0.174), and at final follow up (average 3.06 years, 20/907 vs 20/3446, p = 0.070). Average follow-up time and rates of glaucoma, endophthalmitis, retroprosthetic membrane, and retinal detachment did not significantly differ between groups (all p > 0.05). All eyes that progressed to no light perception (n = 13) had undergone secondary Kpro implantation.
conclusionsVisual acuity outcomes were similar between primary Kpro implantation and secondary Kpro implantation. Eyes that underwent primary Kpro implantation trended toward better postoperative VA at final follow-up than secondary Kpro eyes.
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.