Comparison of Small-incision Femtosecond Laser-assisted Intrastromal Keratoplasty and Lamellar Keratoplasty in Rhesus Monkeys Using Xenogenic Corneal Lamellae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In our previous study, both allogeneic and xenogeneic smallincision femtosecond laser-assisted intrastromal keratoplasty were demonstrated to be safe and effective surgeries. Glycerol-dehydrated corneal lamellae could serve as alternative xenogeneic inlay grafts. However, these xenogeneic lamellae have not been explored in lamellar keratoplasty (LK). The immunoreactivity differences between corneal intrastromal xenotransplantation and xenogeneic LK have not been assessed. METHODS: Rabbit lamellae were formed by femtosecond laser-assisted surgeries and dehydrated in glycerol for 1 week at 4°C. The lamellae were used in two surgical approaches in the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) group and the LK group. Postoperatively, slit-lamp examinations, corneal topography, anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), in vivo confocal microscopy and tear inflammatory mediator assays were performed. RESULTS: Throughout the 12-month observation period, all rejection index ratings were higher in the LK group than in the SMILE group. No signs of graft rejection were observed in the SMILE group, but obvious neovascularization and corneal rejection occurred in the LK group. Corneal topography showed that the anterior curvatures at the central cornea and the mid-peripheral cornea were significantly increased in the SMILE group but decreased in the LK group. All the grafts from both groups were clearly visible on AS-OCT. In vivo confocal microscopy showed few dendritic cells in the subepithelial region in the SMILE group. Numerous dendritic cells and inflammatory cells were observed in the basal epithelium and stroma in the LK group. In the LK group, the levels of TGF-β1, CD40, ICAM-1, CD14 and IL-10 changed more than those in the SMILE group. The levels of VEGF were significantly elevated 1 month after surgery in the LK group. CONCLUSION: Small-incision femtosecond laser-assisted intrastromal keratoplasty minimized invasiveness and improved surgical efficiency. This small-incision intrastromal keratoplasty technique is superior to LK in terms of xenogeneic lamellae biocompatibility. Moreover, glycerol-dehydrated corneal lamellae might be a viable xenogenic corneal inlay graft.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".