Corneal transplantation has been proven effective for returning the gift of sight to those affected by corneal disorders such as opacity, injury, and infections that are a leading cause of blindness. Immune privilege plays an important role in the success of corneal transplantation procedures; however, immune rejection reactions do occur, and they, in conjunction with a shortage of corneal donor tissue, continue to pose major challenges. Corneal immune privilege is important to the success of corneal transplantation and closely related to the avascular nature of the cornea. Corneal avascularity may be disrupted by the processes of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis, and for this reason, these phenomena have been a focus of research in recent years. Through this research, therapies addressing certain rejection reactions related to angiogenesis have been developed and implemented. Corneal donor tissue shortages also have been addressed by the development of new materials to replace the human donor cornea. These advancements, along with other improvements in the corneal transplantation procedure, have contributed to an improved success rate for corneal transplantation. We summarize recent developments and improvements in corneal transplantation, including the current understanding of angiogenesis mechanisms, the anti-angiogenic and anti-lymphangiogenic factors identified to date, and the new materials being used. Additionally, we discuss future directions for research in corneal transplantation.
Introduction Burn patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) as well as bleeding complications, thus choosing the best option for thromboprophylaxis can be challenging. Previous studies have analyzed the preferred antithrombotic agent in trauma patients, but this has not been established in burns. We hypothesize that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is associated with better outcomes than unfractionated heparin. Methods The Trauma Quality Improvement Project (TQIP) dataset was used to identify all patients with second- or third-degree burns that were administered VTE prophylaxis. Cases with missing data, < 24-hour hospital length of stay, other serious traumatic injuries (any AIS >3), interhospital transfer, history of kidney disease, or pre-hospital history of anticoagulant use were excluded. Bleeding complications were defined as hemorrhage control surgery, embolization procedures, or blood transfusion occurring after the initiation of thromboprophylaxis, consistent with other studies analyzing bleeding complications in TQIP. Rates of VTE and bleeding complications were compared between those who received heparin versus LMWH. Propensity score matching was performed to control for age, total body surface area percent (TBSA%) burned, and ICU admission (Table 1). Results The analysis included 9,857 patients (69% male). Median age was 50 (34-62) years. LWMH was associated with fewer complications including pulmonary embolism, any VTE, and bleeding (Table 2). Initiation of thromboprophylaxis within 24 hours of arrival was associated with a lower risk of VTE (1.0% vs 2.1%, p< 0.001) without showing a significant difference in bleeding complications (6.4% vs 7.2%, p=0.206). Conclusions This propensity score matched analysis of nearly ten thousand burn patients has demonstrated that low molecular weight heparin is associated with reduced risk of VTE and bleeding compared to heparin. Initiation of thromboprophylaxis within 24 hours is linked to lower rates of VTE. In burn patients without contraindications, thromboprophylaxis with LMWH should be started within 24 hours. Applicability of Research to Practice Venous thromboembolism is an important complication in burn patients, which may negatively impact patient outcomes. These patients regularly receive DVT prophylaxis and it is important for their care team to be able to select the proper agents.
Review question / Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of utilizing biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh during ventral hernia repair (VHR). Eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing biologic and synthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair. Studies were included if they were focused on adults (over age 18), human subjects, and were published in the English language. Studies were limited to only VHR and needed to compare biologic with synthetic mesh. Repair could be done open, laparoscopically, or robotically. Exclusion criteria included: (1) articles that only included synthetic or biologic mesh (ex. comparing two types of biologic mesh) or (2) procedures for other types of hernias, for example inguinal or hiatal.
Introduction Given the resource-intense nature of treatment for burn injuries and the knowledge of at-risk populations, a public health approach to reducing individual and societal burden is indicated. To accomplish this, it is critical to understand the regional distribution of these injuries and the risk factors influencing one’s susceptibility to being burned. We hypothesize that there are common sociodemographic trends in burn injuries in a large southern geographic area. Methods Data was retrospectively reviewed for all burn patients admitted between 08/2013 and 12/2021 at a major burn center in a large southern geographic area. Sociodemographic data, burn characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. Patients with isolated inhalation injuries were excluded. One-way ANOVA was used for continuous variables with a P-value < 0.05. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate independent risk factors for mortality. GIS software mapped injury locations alongside census data to augment statistics with visuospatial analysis. Results 1753 patients were included with an annual incidence rate of 36 per 100,000 person-years. Most were male (68%), Caucasian (60%) and non-Hispanic (67%). The most common etiology was cooking-related (14%), with scald and flame burns collectively making up 80%. Flame burns were significantly larger when compared to scald, electrical and chemical mechanisms (p< 0.05). Those between 19 and 45 years old were the largest age group (40%) with significantly larger burns compared to those 0-18 and 46-64 (p< 0.05), but not those > 65. Non-Hispanic patients had significantly larger burns than their Hispanic counterparts (p< 0.05) but no difference in mortality (p=.306). Patients utilizing Medicare/Medicaid were over three times more likely to die compared to those with commercial insurance. Conclusions In this cohort, male patients are injured at higher rates, however, they do not have more severe burns. The larger burns are distributed in a bimodal fashion between those 19-45 and those > 65, with hispanic ethnicity protective against larger burn injuries. This suggests separate mechanisms mediating larger burns in these two groups, and warrants further investigation. Insurance type, a surrogate for socioeconomic status (SES), is not associated with TBSA or LOS, however it does confer an increase in mortality in those with Medicare/Medicaid. GIS mapping verifies neighborhoods concentrated in more urban areas with lower median household incomes have higher injury rates. This highlights populations worth targeting for injury prevention, namely those between 19 and 45 of lower SES, particularly in the setting of cooking and food preparation. Applicability of Research to Practice Understanding regional trends in burn injury can target prevention efforts and identify at risk populations where further resources might be best allocated to ease the burden of burn injury.
Introduction Augmented renal clearance (ARC) has been reported to occur across many critical illnesses but has not been evaluated in critically ill burn patients. The impact of ARC on clinical outcomes within this population remains unknown. We hypothesize that ARC is prevalent in critically ill burn patients and is associated with improved survival. Methods We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively-maintained registry of Burn ICU patients from July 2021 – September 2022 at an academic burn center. We included patients in whom 24-hour urine creatinine collection was performed on admission and excluded patients in whom accurate collection was not performed within 48 hours of admission. Creatinine clearance was calculated for all patients who met inclusion criteria. ARC was determined to occur when creatine clearance exceeded 130 mL/min/1.73m2. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without ARC. Results The analysis included 24 patients (67% male, median age 42 [31-55] years). The median percentage of total body surface area (TBSA) burned was 25 [10-38]. ARC was present in 17 patients (71%). Mean creatinine clearance was 162 ml/min/1.73m2 (range 37-313), and 7 patients (29%) had creatinine clearance greater than 200. Complication rates were low and were similar between patients with and without ARC (all p >0.05). Conclusions ARC appears to be a common phenomenon among critically injured burn patients. While the presence of ARC could be particularly meaningful in this population of patients that often receives massive volumes of resuscitative fluids, the sample size of our study did not permit the detection of statistically significant differences in outcomes between burn patients with and without ARC. Further work must be undertaken to assess the impact of ARC on fluid resuscitation strategies and medication dosing including that of antibiotics and thromboprophylaxis agents. Applicability of Research to Practice Augmented renal clearance (ARC) has never before been characterized in the population of critically injured burn patients. This topic merits further research, as it could have far-reaching clinical impact relating to fluid resuscitation practices and dosing of renally-cleared medications (antibiotics, thromboprophylaxis, etc.).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.