ReviewFrontiers in ophthalmology2026
Injectable corneal endothelial cell therapy: recent progress, translational barriers, and future directions.
Review in Frontiers in 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Corneal endothelial dysfunction, most commonly caused by Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) or pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK), leads to stromal edema and corneal decompensation when endothelial cell density (ECD) falls below 500-700cells/mm². Standard treatment via corneal transplantation, including Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), is limited by the need to standardize corneal endothelial cell culture, donor shortages, immune rejection, and technical complications.This review aims to summarize recent advances in injectable corneal endothelial cell (CEC) therapy, critically appraise translational challenges, and discuss future directions for establishing this regenerative approach as a global treatment. Design: Narrative review of pre-clinical and clinical studies examining CEC injection therapy. Methods: Relevant literature was analyzed to evaluate innovations in Human corneal endothelial cells (HCEC) preparation, culture techniques, delivery methods, and strategies to enhance cell adhesion and survival. Studies reporting preclinical models and human clinical trials were included to assess safety, efficacy, and translational feasibility. Results: Corneal endothelial cells (CEC) injections have achieved significant advancement since their development. Simple cultured CEC injections showed poor efficacy due to limited cell adhesion and survival, but the introduction of ROCK inhibitors along with cultured CECs demonstrated improvement in corneal transparency up to 5 years. Advancements in cell delivery techniques like hydrogel, carrier-assisted injections, magnetically guided injections, as well as alternative cell sources have shown promising results in pre-clinical studies, but human studies are still ongoing. Despite advancements, persisting challenges include phenotypic stability, and longterm safety and efficacy. Discussion: Injectable CEC therapy is a promising minimally invasive alternative to corneal transplantation. While early clinical outcomes are encouraging, further work is required to optimize cell preparation, delivery, and long-term safety, and to establish the therapy as a scalable, globally applicable treatment for endothelial failure.
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.