Donor cross-linking for keratoplasty: a laboratory evaluation
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, ISSN: 1435-702X, Vol: 253, Issue: 12, Page: 2223-2228
2015
- 9Citations
- 11Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- CrossRef2
- Captures11
- Readers11
- 11
Article Description
Purpose: This laboratory-based investigation compares the topographic outcomes of conventional penetrating keratoplasty with that of a novel procedure in which donor corneas are cross-linked prior to keratoplasty. Methods: Penetrating keratoplasty procedures with continuous running sutures were carried out in a porcine whole globe model. Sixty eyes were randomly paired as ‘donor’ and ‘host’ tissue before being assigned to one of two groups. In the cross-linked group, donor corneas underwent riboflavin/UVA cross-linking prior to being trephined and sutured to untreated hosts. In the conventional keratoplasty group, both host and donor corneas remained untreated prior to keratoplasty. Topographic and corneal wavefront measurements were performed following surgery, and technical aspects of the procedure evaluated. Results: Mean keratometric astigmatism was significantly lower in the cross-linked donor group at 3.67D (SD 1.8 D), vs. 8.43 D (SD 2.4 D) in the conventional keratoplasty group (p < 0.005). Mean wavefront astigmatism was also significantly reduced in the cross-linked donor group 4.71 D (SD 2.1) vs. 8.29D (SD 3.6) in the conventional keratoplasty group (p < 0.005). Mean RMS higher order aberration was significantly lower in the cross-linked donor group at 1.79 um (SD 0.98), vs. 3.05 um (SD 1.9) in the conventional keratoplasty group (P = 0.02). Qualitative analysis revealed less tissue distortion at the graft-host junction in the cross-linked group. Conclusion: Cross-linking of donor corneas prior to keratoplasty reduces intraoperative induced astigmatism and aberrations in an animal model. Further studies are indicated to evaluate the implications of this potential modification of keratoplasty surgery.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84947616764&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3160-6; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26345527; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00417-015-3160-6; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3160-6; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00417-015-3160-6
Springer Nature
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know