ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2025
Clinical Outcomes of Different Surgical Techniques in Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency.
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) treated with various limbal stem cell transplantation (LSCT) techniques. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 32 eyes of 29 patients who underwent LSCT. Clinical evaluation was performed based on preoperative and postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]), degree of corneal neovascularization, extent of corneal involvement, and clarity of the central visual axis. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) compatibility in allograft recipients was assessed via HLA tissue typing. The Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare variables between groups. Results: A total of 84.4% (n=27) of the eyes had LSCD secondary to chemical injury. Median preoperative and postoperative BCVA (logMAR) values were 2.1 and 1.8 (p=0.01) in the conjunctival limbal allograft (CLAL) group (n=22; 18 living-related, 4 deceased donors), 0.9 and 0.7 (p=0.11) in the conjunctival limbal autograft (CLAU) group (n=4), and 2.1 and 1.3 (p=0.04) in the simple limbal epithelial transplantation (SLET) group (n=6; 3 autografts, 3 allografts), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in BCVA improvement between groups. Median clinical scores improved from 10 to 6 in the CLAL group (p<0.001), from 7 to 4 in the CLAU group (p=0.11), and from 10 to 3 in the SLET group (p=0.03). Preoperatively, a statistically significant difference in clinical scores was observed only between the CLAU and SLET groups (p=0.029); however, no significant difference was found between groups postoperatively. HLA compatibility was 75% in 15 eyes that received living-related CLAL, and 100% in all 3 eyes that underwent allogeneic SLET. Conclusion: Different LSCT techniques may be applied in LSCD depending on the underlying etiology and extent of involvement. Favorable outcomes can also be achieved with allogeneic approaches when HLA compatibility is ensured.
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.