Trial reportBMC biotechnology2024
Comparative evaluation of autologous tissue-engineered ocular and oral mucosal tissue grafts- a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBilateral ocular surface disease resulting from Stevens Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and chemical injuries are visually debilitating and difficult to treat. Ocular surface reconstruction by various means has been reported with variable results. This study addresses an unmet need for a prospective clinical trial comparing the outcomes of transplanting autologous oral and conjunctival epithelial cell constructs on human amniotic membrane by ex vivo tissue engineering.
methodsA prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial was prospectively applied for registration, with the clinical trial registry of India (CTRI), with the approval of the Institute Ethics Committee number IEC/NP-99/11.04.2014 and CTRI No. REF/2018/10/021791, the study also registered with the WHO-recognized trial registry, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registration reference number 45780. The study was conducted to compare clinical outcomes of two different tissue-engineered cell grafts, Cultivated Oral Mucosal Epithelial Transplantation (COMET) and Conjunctival Cultivated Epithelial Transplantation (CCET) for ocular surface reconstruction in patients with bilateral ocular surface disease due to Stevens-Johnson Syndrome or chemical injuries. Fifty patients were enrolled and randomized to either the COMET or CCET group. A uniform pre-op and post-op protocol using standard medications was followed for all patients Parameters assessed at baseline, day 1, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively included patient comfort, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ocular surface status and corneal clarity. The efficacy was measured in terms of improvement of vision, reduction in vascularization, symblepharon and corneal clarity.
resultsIn the study, 50 patients (50 eyes; mean ages of 29 ± 15.86 years and 26.36 ± 10.85 years, respectively; range, 12-65 years) were enrolled, with 25 patients each in the COMET and CCET groups. Out of them, 36% were female and 64% were male; the causes were Steven Johnson syndrome (48), and chemical injury (2). Mean pre-operative BCVA was log MAR 1.73 ± 0.57 for COMET and 1.99 ± 0.33 for the CCET group. Pre-operatively all 50 enrolled patients had opaque corneas pre-operatively, symblepharon that extended to the cornea categorised as grade 3 and corneal vascularization that went beyond the pupil's boundary into the central zone encluaching on the visual axis. The minimal follow-up time was six months. Following surgery postoperatively, the BCVA considerably improved in the COMET group by 1.51 ± 0.58 compared to the CCET group by 1.91 ± 0.33 at 3 months. BCVA at 6 months was 1.73 ± 0.56 in the COMET group and 1.99 ± 0.31 in the CCET group, which is not statistically significant and comparable to the BCVA before surgery. The corneal clarity was significantly improved in COMET group 25 eye (100%) at 2 month, 3month and 19 eye (76%), 6eye (24%) at 6 months when compared to CCET group 15 eye improved (60%), 9 eyes (36%) not improved and one eye with opaque cornea (4%) at 2 months. 22 eye (88%) had not improved, 2 eye (8%) opaque cornea and 1 eye (4%) improved at 3 months. At 6 months 21 eye (84%) were not improved, 4 eye (16%) eye became opaqued at 6 months. Compared to preoperative conditions, both groups had improved corneal clarity significantly (p > 0.005). Of the 50 patients with grade 3 symblepharon extended to the cornea, were completely resolved 19 (76%) in COMET group when compared to CCET group 22 eye (88%) not improved. Similarly, 19 eye (76%) had a improvement in corneal vascularization when compared to the CCET group not improved 25 eye (100%) at 6months. No adverse event was observed in any of either group during the follow up periods.
conclusionBoth cell types are effective to restore the ocular surface integrity in bilateral ocular surface disease. Whereas COMET is safe and efficacious in terms of improvement of clinical parameters including, BCVA, corneal clarity, reduction in vascularization and preventing the recurrence of symblepharon postoperatively 3months and 6 months. In addition, the CCET group maintained the stability of the ocular surface and had improvement in corneal clarity and a decrease in vascularization at 3 months compared to their pre-operative characteristics.
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.