ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Endothelial keratoplasty outcomes of domestic versus imported donor corneas.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare keratoplasty outcomes of domestic versus imported donor corneas.
methodsA retrospective comparative case series including 193 consecutive endothelial keratoplasty procedures, with 94 procedures (49%) performed using imported corneas (Imported group) and 99 procedures (51%) performed using domestic corneas (Domestic group). The main outcome was graft survival. The secondary outcome was postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).
resultsBaseline recipient characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean follow-up time was 12.0 ± 8.2 months. The Domestic group showed an increased preoperative endothelial cell density (2937 ± 333 vs 2810 ± 272 cells/mm 2 ), a shorter death-to-preservation time (6.9 ± 5.0 vs 12.5 ± 5.5 hours), and a shorter death-to-transplant time (6.6 ± 2.1 vs 8.9 ± 1.5 hours). The survival probability of domestic corneas at 6, 12, and 24 months was 94%, 91%, and 86%, respectively. The survival probability of imported corneas was 88%, 88%, and 88%, respectively. Survival distribution did not differ significantly between the groups ( P = 0.539). The mean postoperative BCVA was 0.55 ± 0.54 logMAR in the Domestic group ( n = 59) and 0.58 ± 0.60 logMAR in the Imported group ( n =58, P = 0.623).
conclusionsGraft survival rates and visual outcomes did not differ between imported and domestic corneas, despite significant baseline differences, which include preoperative endothelial cell count, death-to-preservation time, and death-to-transplant time. A trend toward higher primary failure rates with imported corneas warrants further investigation.
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.