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.
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.