ArticleJournal of cataract and refractive surgery2026
Scanning electron microscopy of artificial corneal endothelial keratoplasty implant.
Article in Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 2026. 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
purposeTo characterize the surface morphology and edge profile of the artificial corneal endothelial device (EndoArt) using environmental scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
settingUniversity of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.
designHigh-resolution environmental SEM study.
methodsEndoArt specimens underwent examination using an environmental scanning electron microscope (EVO LS15) with variable pressure chamber capabilities, enabling artifact-free examination of hydrophilic materials. Images were digitized at 2048 × 1760 dpi resolution with 200 μm scale markers. Both inner (corneal) and outer (aqueous) surfaces were evaluated at magnifications ranging from 395× to 10.46K×, focusing on surface topography and edge profile characteristics.
resultsThe EndoArt device exhibited a dome-shaped configuration measuring 6.5 mm in diameter with uniform 50 μm thickness. Surface analysis revealed exceptionally smooth topographical characteristics on both surfaces with minimal variation. Both inner and outer surfaces demonstrated pristine, uniform appearance without visible manufacturing marks, scratches, or polymeric irregularities. Surface roughness measurements indicated values well below thresholds associated with cellular adhesion or protein deposition. The edge profile demonstrated optimal tapered design balancing stable tissue adhesion with minimal mechanical trauma. Mirror-like surface quality extended consistently across examined areas, superior to conventional hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lenses which typically exhibit surface irregularities and textural defects.
conclusionsThe exceptional surface smoothness and optimized tapered edge profile documented support the device's barrier function mechanism, correlating with clinical outcomes showing 18% to 37% corneal thickness reductions and representing significant advances in artificial endothelial replacement technology with EndoArt.
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.