ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Investigating the Tolerance of Corneal Endothelial Cells to Surgical Fluid Pressure Using Intact Porcine Eyes.
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.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: It remains unclear if fluid pressures used during cataract surgeries contribute to iatrogenic corneal endothelial cell (CEC) loss. Methods: A custom experimental platform was used to pressurize the anterior chamber of explanted porcine eyes to surgical fluid pressures of 60 mm Hg or 400 mm Hg for 5 minutes or 60 mm Hg for 45 minutes (n = 8 or 9 per group). The corneal endothelia were stained with a unique combination of nucleic acid viability dyes and were imaged using fluorescence microscopy without removing the cornea from the globe. The images were analyzed using custom code to quantify acute CEC loss as a percentage of CEC injury/death (PCI). The PCI values from the surgical pressure groups were compared to sham controls perfused to physiological pressures for each surgical duration. As a positive control, a group of eyes (n = 8) was perfused with deionized water to intentionally induce CEC injury/death. Results: No significant differences were observed in mean PCI values between any of the surgical fluid pressure groups and sham control groups, at either duration. The mean PCI of the positive control group was significantly different from all other groups, indicating that the method is able to detect CEC injury/death. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the magnitudes of fluid pressure used over the duration of a cataract surgery do not significantly contribute to acute iatrogenic CEC loss. Translational Relevance: Not only do the findings of this study answer a longstanding clinical question related to cataract surgery, but the platform introduced will facilitate testing how new cataract surgery devices and techniques affect CEC viability.
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.