Efficacy of Fresh Versus Preserved Amniotic Membrane Grafts for Ocular Surface Reconstruction: Meta-analysis.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q2 CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1089/ten.teb.2024.0217
Yu Hu, Jinhai Yu, Yuting Fu, Xinyi Guan, Fen Xiong, Hongfei Liao, Qihua Xu, Anan Wang
{"title":"Efficacy of Fresh Versus Preserved Amniotic Membrane Grafts for Ocular Surface Reconstruction: Meta-analysis.","authors":"Yu Hu, Jinhai Yu, Yuting Fu, Xinyi Guan, Fen Xiong, Hongfei Liao, Qihua Xu, Anan Wang","doi":"10.1089/ten.teb.2024.0217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Amniotic membrane transplantation is commonly employed in ophthalmology to mend corneal epithelial and stromal defects. Its effectiveness in restoring the ocular surface has been widely acknowledged in clinical practice. Nevertheless, there is ongoing debate regarding the comparative effectiveness of using fresh amniotic membranes versus preserved ones. The objective of this meta-analysis was to ascertain whether there is a disparity in the effectiveness of fresh versus preserved amniotic membrane in the restoration of the ocular surface in clinical practice. The study utilized the following keywords: \"fresh amniotic membrane,\" \"preserved amniotic membrane,\" \"amniotic membrane transplantation,\" and \"ocular surface reconstruction.\" The study conducted a comprehensive search for relevant studies published until April 18, 2024. Seven different databases, namely PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, China Knowledge, China Science and Technology Journal VIP database, and Wanfang database, were utilized. The search was performed using the keywords \"fresh amniotic membrane,\" \"preserved amniotic membrane,\" \"amniotic membrane transplantation,\" and \"ocular surface reconstruction.\" The process of literature review and data extraction was carried out separately by two researchers, and all statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1. The final analysis comprised nine cohort studies, encompassing a total of 408 participants. The statistics included six outcome indicators: visual acuity (relative risk [RR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.93-1.24, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0); amniotic membrane viability (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.93-1.08, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0); ocular congestion resolution (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.97-1.26, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0); fluorescent staining of amniotic membranes on the second day after the operation (RR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.80-2.14, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 11); postoperative recurrence rate (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.50-2.03, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0); and premature lysis of amniotic membrane implants (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.49-1.88, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0). The findings indicated that there was no statistically significant disparity between fresh and preserved amniotic membranes across any of the measured variables. There is no substantial disparity in the effectiveness of fresh and preserved amniotic membrane transplants in restoring the ocular surface, and both yield favorable and consistent outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23134,"journal":{"name":"Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.teb.2024.0217","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Amniotic membrane transplantation is commonly employed in ophthalmology to mend corneal epithelial and stromal defects. Its effectiveness in restoring the ocular surface has been widely acknowledged in clinical practice. Nevertheless, there is ongoing debate regarding the comparative effectiveness of using fresh amniotic membranes versus preserved ones. The objective of this meta-analysis was to ascertain whether there is a disparity in the effectiveness of fresh versus preserved amniotic membrane in the restoration of the ocular surface in clinical practice. The study utilized the following keywords: "fresh amniotic membrane," "preserved amniotic membrane," "amniotic membrane transplantation," and "ocular surface reconstruction." The study conducted a comprehensive search for relevant studies published until April 18, 2024. Seven different databases, namely PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, China Knowledge, China Science and Technology Journal VIP database, and Wanfang database, were utilized. The search was performed using the keywords "fresh amniotic membrane," "preserved amniotic membrane," "amniotic membrane transplantation," and "ocular surface reconstruction." The process of literature review and data extraction was carried out separately by two researchers, and all statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1. The final analysis comprised nine cohort studies, encompassing a total of 408 participants. The statistics included six outcome indicators: visual acuity (relative risk [RR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.93-1.24, I2 = 0); amniotic membrane viability (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.93-1.08, I2 = 0); ocular congestion resolution (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.97-1.26, I2 = 0); fluorescent staining of amniotic membranes on the second day after the operation (RR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.80-2.14, I2 = 11); postoperative recurrence rate (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.50-2.03, I2 = 0); and premature lysis of amniotic membrane implants (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.49-1.88, I2 = 0). The findings indicated that there was no statistically significant disparity between fresh and preserved amniotic membranes across any of the measured variables. There is no substantial disparity in the effectiveness of fresh and preserved amniotic membrane transplants in restoring the ocular surface, and both yield favorable and consistent outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新鲜羊膜移植与保存羊膜移植用于眼表重建的疗效:META = 元分析。
羊膜移植是眼科常用的角膜上皮和基质缺损修补方法。在临床实践中,羊膜移植在修复眼表方面的有效性已得到广泛认可。然而,关于使用新鲜羊膜与保存羊膜的效果比较,一直存在争议。本荟萃分析旨在确定在临床实践中,新鲜羊膜与保存羊膜在恢复眼表方面的效果是否存在差异。研究使用了以下关键词:"新鲜羊膜"、"保存羊膜"、"羊膜移植 "和 "眼表重建"。研究对 2024 年 4 月 18 日之前发表的相关研究进行了全面检索。研究利用了七个不同的数据库,即PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane、中国知网、中国科技期刊VIP数据库和万方数据库。检索关键词为 "新鲜羊膜"、"保存羊膜"、"羊膜移植 "和 "眼表重建"。文献综述和数据提取过程由两名研究人员分别进行,所有统计分析均使用 Review Manager 5.4.1 进行。最终分析包括九项队列研究,共有 408 名参与者。统计结果包括六项结果指标:视力(相对风险 [RR] = 1.07,95% 置信区间 [CI] = 0.93-1.24,I2 = 0);羊膜存活率(RR = 1.00,95% CI = 0.93-1.08,I2 = 0);眼充血缓解率(RR = 1.11,95% CI = 0.97-1.26,I2 = 0);眼充血缓解率(RR = 1.00,95% CI = 0.93-1.08,I2 = 0)。26,I2 = 0);术后第二天羊膜荧光染色(RR = 1.31,95% CI = 0.80-2.14,I2 = 11);术后复发率(RR = 1.01,95% CI = 0.50-2.03,I2 = 0);羊膜植入物过早溶解(RR = 0.96,95% CI = 0.49-1.88,I2 = 0)。研究结果表明,在所有测量变量中,新鲜羊膜和保存羊膜之间没有统计学意义上的显著差异。在恢复眼表方面,新鲜羊膜移植和保存羊膜移植的效果没有实质性差异,两者都能产生良好且一致的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews
Tissue Engineering. Part B, Reviews Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
1.60%
发文量
150
期刊介绍: Tissue Engineering Reviews (Part B) meets the urgent need for high-quality review articles by presenting critical literature overviews and systematic summaries of research within the field to assess the current standing and future directions within relevant areas and technologies. Part B publishes bi-monthly.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Fresh Versus Preserved Amniotic Membrane Grafts for Ocular Surface Reconstruction: Meta-analysis. Tissue Engineering Nasal Cartilage Grafts with Three-Dimensional Printing: A Comprehensive Review. Delivery Strategies of Growth Factors in Cartilage Tissue Engineering. Tissue-Engineered Three-Dimensional Platforms for Disease Modeling and Therapeutic Development. Advancing Cartilage Tissue Engineering: A Review of 3D Bioprinting Approaches and Bioink Properties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1