ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Visual outcomes following implantation of intracorneal rings with sharp and round triangular cross-section designs in keratoconus.
Article in International 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 the visual, refractive, corneal curvature, and aberrometry outcomes one year following implantation of two intra-stromal corneal rings (ICRS) with different cross-sectional designs.
methodsThis retrospective longitudinal study included 40 keratoconus eyes implanted with ICRSs with similar characteristics except for their cross-sectional design, Keraring with sharp corners triangular cross-section (n = 20 eyes) and Keratacx Plus with round corners triangular cross-section (n = 20 eyes). The two rings were similar in terms of arc length (355°) and outer diameter (5.7 mm). The uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA & CDVA), refraction, corneal topography, and aberrometry indices were compared before and one year after surgery.
resultsDespite a significant change in VA, spherical equivalent, astigmatism, and keratometry readings, there was no statistically significant difference in their mean changes between the two rings. (P > 0.05) The mean corneal asphericity expressed by the Q-value showed a statistically significant change toward less prolateness after surgery and was the only parameter with a significant mean change between the two groups (P = 0.04). In comparing the mean changes of corneal aberrometry indices between two rings, a statistically significant difference was seen for total aberration (P = 0.03), lower order aberrations (LOA, P = 0.03), and defocus (P = 0.03). Subgroup analysis based on keratoconus severity (mild and moderate stages) showed a statistically significant difference in Q-value (P = 0.019), total aberration (P = 0.040), LOA (P = 0.041), and defocus (P = 0.027) only for the moderate keratoconus group between the two rings.
conclusionsBoth rings provided a significant improvement in visual, refractive, and keratometric parameters so that the triangular cross-sectional design of Keratacx Plus with round corners is not superior to Keraring with sharp corners in terms of visual quality and higher order aberrations (HOAs).
Indexed as
Identifiers
41949665What 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.