ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Safety profile of lutein-based blue dyes and surgical lights.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The combination of surgical endoillumination and vital dyes has been associated with phototoxicity and retinal damage, despite vital dyes being mainly considered safe. Based on this perspective, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of lutein-based blue dyes (LBBDs) on human retinal pigmented epithelial (ARPE-19) cells and their combination with surgical light exposure. Methods: ARPE-19 cells were exposed to LBBDs and/or xenon/LED light according to the following experimental design: phase I, exposure to LBBDs only; phase II, exposure to lights only; phase III, single sequential exposure to LBBDs and xenon/LED light; and phase IV, double sequential exposure to LBBDs and xenon/LED light. ATPlite and reactive oxygen species (ROS) detection assays were used to assess the impact on cell viability and ROS production, respectively. Results: No cytotoxic effect was detected following the exposure to LBBDs for 5 min. LED and xenon lights elicited a cytotoxic effect and an overproduction of ROS for an exposure time of ≥5 min. The ROS overproduction following 5-min exposure of ARPE-19 cells to both LED and xenon lights was significantly ( Discussion: These findings demonstrated the primary role of light-induced damage as a primary contributing factor to potential retinal damage following peeling procedures. LBBDs provided a protective effect against light-induced oxidative damage, highlighting their potential role in enhancing the safety profile of staining in retinal surgery.
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.