ArticleJournal of current ophthalmology
Visual and Refractive Outcomes of Different Bubble Types in Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty for Macular Corneal Dystrophy.
Article in Journal of current ophthalmology. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the variations in deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) techniques in eyes with macular corneal dystrophy (MCD), and to compare visual outcomes between standard DALK and Descemet's membrane (DM) baring DALK. Methods: A retrospective comparative case series was conducted, categorizing eyes into two groups: Group A, without DM baring, and Group B, with central DM baring. All DALK surgeries for MCD conducted between January 2010 and August 2020 at our institution were included in this study. Results: The study comprised 29 eyes from 18 patients with a mean follow-up period of 54.85 months. Type 1 bubble was achieved in 4 eyes (13.8%), type 2 or mixed bubbles were formed in 19 eyes (65.5%), and failed big bubble formation occurred in 6 eyes (20.7%). Group A (non-DM baring) comprised 18 eyes (62.1%), while Group B (central DM baring) included 11 eyes (37.9%). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in terms of best-corrected visual acuity, spherical equivalent, or topographic astigmatism. However, Group B demonstrated significantly improved contrast sensitivity ( Conclusions: The incidence of type 2 or mixed bubbles in MCD cases is relatively high, facilitating central DM baring. In this series, central DM baring correlated with improved contrast sensitivity and prevented MCD opacities recurrence. Thus, it should be considered in all DALK cases for MCD if a type 2 bubble is formed.
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.