ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Amniotic Membrane Transplantation versus Tarsorrhaphy for the Treatment of Persistent Corneal Epithelial Defects: A Comparative Study in a Tertiary Eye Care Facility in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) compared to tarsorrhaphy for treating persistent corneal epithelial defects (PED) resistant to medical therapy. The primary outcome was complete healing at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included healing time, recurrence rates, and postoperative complications. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital (KKESH), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. We analyzed electronic medical records of patients treated from January 2018 to December 2021. Patients with PED (epithelial defect >14 days) receiving either AMT or tarsorrhaphy were included. Data collected included demographics, etiology of PED, size and duration of the PED, type of intervention and postoperative outcomes. Complications assessed included recurrent PED, microbial keratitis, and corneal scarring. Results: Of 67 eyes, 37 underwent AMT (median age 65) and 30 underwent tarsorrhaphy (median age 69). Baseline exposure keratopathy was more prevalent in the tarsorrhaphy group (40% vs. 2.7%; p<0.001), while microbial keratitis was more common in the AMT group (57% vs. 20%; p=0.002). Healing rates at 1 month were 59% (22/37) for AMT and 50% (15/30) for tarsorrhaphy (p=0.43). By 6 months, healing rates were 86% (32/37) for AMT and 70% (21/30) for tarsorrhaphy (p=0.10). Complications included recurrent PED (2.7% for AMT vs. 6.7% for tarsorrhaphy; p=0.6) and microbial keratitis (2.7% in both groups; p=0.6). Corneal scarring was significantly more frequent in the tarsorrhaphy group (37% vs. 8.1%; p=0.004). Conclusion: Both AMT and tarsorrhaphy successfully facilitated PED healing, with AMT demonstrating a numerically higher, though not statistically significant, healing rate (86% vs 70%). Tarsorrhaphy was associated with a higher incidence of corneal scarring, potentially linked to underlying exposure keratopathy. Future prospective investigations with standardized treatment assignments are warranted.
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.