Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39365247›Full record

ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024

In Vivo Femtosecond Laser Machined Transepithelial Nonlinear Optical Corneal Crosslinking Compared to Ultraviolet Corneal Crosslinking.

Samantha Bradford, Rohan Joshi, Shangbang Luo, Emily Farrah, Yilu Xie, Donald J Brown, Tibor Juhasz, James V Jester

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Samantha BradfordDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Hebert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Rohan JoshiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Hebert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Shangbang LuoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Hebert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Emily FarrahDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Hebert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Yilu XieDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Hebert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Donald J BrownDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Hebert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Tibor JuhaszDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Hebert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
James V JesterDepartment of Ophthalmology, Gavin Hebert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.

Funding

Univ.of Calif., Irvine Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA062203 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Melanie Funes · 1994 to 2026
$57.9M
NEI UCI Center Core Grant for Vision ResearchP30EY034070 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Rachel Wagner Martin · 2022 to 2026
$3.7M
Non-linear Optical Collagen Cross-linking (NLO CXL) for Treatment of Keratoconus.R01EY024600 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI JESTER, JAMES V · 2014 to 2024
$3.1M
Acquisition of nonlinear optical microscopy platform for advanced tissue imagingS10OD028698 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI POTMA, ERIC OLAF · 2020 to 2020
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA062203NEI NIH HHS P30 EY034070NEI NIH HHS R01 EY024600NIH HHS S10 OD028698
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study assessed the safety and efficacy of transepithelial crosslinking (CXL) using femtosecond (FS) laser-machined epithelial microchannels (MCs) followed by UVA CXL compared to FS laser (NLO CXL) in rabbits. Methods: The epithelium of 36 rabbits was machined to create 2- by 25-µm MCs at 400 MCs/mm2. Eyes were treated with 1% riboflavin (Rf) solution for 30 minutes, rinsed, and then crosslinked using UVA or NLO CXL. Rabbits were monitored by epithelial staining, optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging, and esthesiometry. After sacrifice at 2, 4, or 8 weeks, corneas were examined for collagen autofluorescence and immunohistochemistry. Results: NLO CXL showed no epithelial damage compared to UVA CXL, which produced on average 23.89 ± 5.6 mm2 epithelial defects that healed by day 3. UVA CXL also produced loss of corneal sensitivity averaging 0.83 ± 0.24 cm force to elicit a blink response that persisted for 28 days and remained significantly lower than control or NLO CXL. OCT imaging detected the presence of a demarcation line only following UVA CXL but not NLO CXL. Conclusions: Even with improved transepithelial Rf penetration, UVA CXL resulted in severe epithelial damage, loss of corneal sensitivity, and delayed wound healing persisting for a month. When MCs were paired with NLO CXL, however, these issues were mostly negated. This suggests that MC NLO CXL can achieve a faster visual recovery without postoperative pain or risk of infection. Translational Relevance: UVA CXL is a successful procedure, but there is a need for a transepithelial protocol. The combination of MCs and NLO CXL is able to keep the benefits of UVA CXL without causing epithelial damage.

Indexed as

CollagenCross-Linking ReagentsPhotosensitizing AgentsRiboflavinTomography, Optical CoherenceUltraviolet RaysAnimalsCorneal StromaDisease Models, AnimalEpithelium, CornealKeratoconusPhotochemotherapyRabbitsCollagenCross-Linking ReagentsPhotosensitizing AgentsRiboflavin

Identifiers

PMID39365247
PMCPMC11460565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.