Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41711803›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026

Comparative analysis of corneal biomechanical parameters in pterygium using scheimpflug technology.

Fengjie Li, Xiaozhen He, Xiaofeng Li, Ying Zhou, Jijun Sun, Ranyi Ding, Yanmei Yu, Weiyun Shi, Can Zhao, Ting Wang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Fengjie LiEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China.
Xiaozhen HeEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China.
Xiaofeng LiEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China.
Ying ZhouEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China.
Jijun SunEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China.
Ranyi DingEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China.
Yanmei YuEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China.
Weiyun ShiEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China.
Can ZhaoEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China. zhaocan0914@163.com.
Ting WangEye Institute of Shandong First Medical University, Eye Hospital of Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Eye Hospital), 372 Jingsi Road, Jinan, 250021, China. wt-ting@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6569-4395

Funding

Key Technology Research and Development Program of Shandong Province 2024CXGC010617National Natural Science Foundation of China 82201154National Natural Science Foundation of China 82271052Taishan Scholar Foundation of Shandong Province tstp20240858Young Elite Sponsorship Program of Shandong Provincial Medical Association 2024-GJ-0175
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe corneal biomechanical characteristics of pterygium were observed at different stages of disease progression and before and after surgery.

methodsThis prospective, nonrandomized controlled study enrolled 175 patients who underwent pterygium excision combined with limbal conjunctival autograft for unilateral pterygium. They were divided into the small-pterygium (SP) group with 75 cases (75 eyes), the massive-pterygium (MP) group with 100 cases (100 eyes), and the contralateral normal eye group (control). The biometric parameters were measured with IOL Master; the length and area of pterygium, with Image J; and the corneal biomechanical parameters pre-surgery and one month post-surgery, with Corvis ST. Predictive factors for corneal biomechanical changes in pterygium were assessed, and a receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted using multifactor logistic regression analysis.

resultsComparison of preoperative corneal biomechanical parameters between two groups of pterygium patients showed that the MP group had a lower Ambrósio’s relational thickness horizontal (ARTh) and a larger Peak Distances (PD) than the SP group (p = 0.000). Preoperatively, both groups showed significant increases in second applanation time (A2T) and integrated radius (IR), and a decrease in ARTh (p < 0.05) compared with the control, with greater changes in the MP group than in the SP group. In the MP group, the preoperative first applanation length (A1L), second applanation length (A2L), and IR increased, while the first applanation time (A1T) and second applanation velocity (A2V) decreased compared with the control (p < 0.05). Postoperatively, A2T, PD, and IR significantly decreased (p < 0.05). In the MP group, postoperative A1L and deformation amplitude (DA) also significantly decreased compared with preoperative; A1T, A2V and ARTh increased (p < 0.05); and A2T and IR remained significantly higher, while ARTh was significantly lower than in the control (p < 0.05). The SP group showed no statistically significant postoperative differences in corneal biomechanical parameters relative to the control group (p > 0.05). Overall, the MP group had a greater impact on biomechanical parameters than the SP group, and recovery was less complete. The horizontal diameter (HD) of the pterygium invading the cornea, the vertical diameter (VD) covering the corneal limbus, and the area invading the cornea (PA) were positively correlated with PD (p < 0.05). PD was significantly associated with corneal biomechanical recovery (p < 0.05).

conclusionPterygium alters corneal biomechanics. Larger pterygia produce greater corneal biomechanical variability. These changes can be partially improved but not completely reversed through surgical treatment. PD may serve as a new predictive indicator for corneal biomechanics in pterygium.

Indexed as

ConjunctivaCorneaElasticityPterygiumAdultAgedBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesCorneal biomechanicalCorrelation analysisCorvis STPterygium

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.