ArticleOphthalmology and therapy2025
Allogenic Cultured Limbal Epithelial Transplantation and Cultivated Oral Mucosal Epithelial Transplantation in Limbal Stem Cells Deficiency: A Comparative Study.
Article in Ophthalmology and therapy, 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.
- Cultivated Oral Mucosal Epithelial Transplantation for Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency: A Scoping Review of Indications, Platforms, Outcomes and Safety.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Scaffold-free cell sheet therapies: clinical advances, global approval landscapes, and strategic directions to address regenerative medicine barriers.Stem cell research & therapy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study compared the clinical outcomes of allogenic cultured limbal epithelial transplantation (ACLET) and cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET) in the management of limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD).
methodsForty-one COMET procedures in 40 eyes and 69 ACLET procedures in 54 eyes were performed in the Corneoplastic Unit of Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead. Data were examined for demographics, indications, ocular surface stability, absence of epithelial defect, ocular surface inflammation, visual outcomes, and intra- and postoperative complications.
resultsKaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients in the ACLET group with longer follow-up had a significantly higher graft survival rate (81.7%, n = 56) than the COMET group (60.7%, n = 25) and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.01). In the COMET group, there was no statistically significant improvement in the visual acuity (VA) while in the ACLET group there was statistically significant improvement in the final VA. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) developed in 9 eyes (22.0%) in the COMET group and in 18 eyes (26.1%) in the ACLET group; infection developed in 4 eyes (9.8%) in the COMET group and in 10 eyes (14.5%) in the ACLET group; and perforation or melting happened in 4 eyes (9.8%) in the COMET group and in 1 eye (1.4%) in the ACLET group. Postoperative immunosuppression complications were noted in 9 eyes (13.0%) in the ACLET group. No graft rejection was observed in either group.
conclusionBoth ACLET and COMET are effective therapeutic procedures for managing advanced and bilateral cases of LSCD. Although COMET has lower graft survival rate than ACLET, it does not mandate systemic immunosuppression therapy to protect against potential graft rejection.
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.