Comparing ProKera With Amniotic Membrane Transplantation: Indications, Outcomes, and Costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of ProKera versus amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) in managing ocular surface disease. METHODS: This study is a retrospective case series of patients who received either ProKera or sutured AMT for ocular surface disease. Patient demographics, treatment indications, retention time, percentage healed area, changes in visual acuity, and costs to the health care system were analyzed. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were identified and analyzed for each group. The main indications for using ProKera and AMT were similar, including corneal ulcer or epithelial defect due to chemical burns, neurotropic state, or herpes zoster keratitis. The average time to dissolution or removal was 24.8 days in the ProKera group, compared with 50.1 days in the AMT group. The average percentage of healed corneal area was 59% for ProKera and 73% for AMT. There was no significant difference between the initial and the final visual acuity within groups and when comparing both groups. In our expense analysis, ProKera had a total cost of 699.00 Canadian dollars (CAD), whereas the cost of suture AMT was 1561.52 CAD. ProKera priced at 11.85 CAD for each percentage healed surface area and at 21.39 CAD for AMT. CONCLUSIONS: ProKera allowed for a faster corneal healing than sutured AMT, although its total healed area was less than the latter. Moreover, ProKera is more cost-effective than AMT, thus reducing financial burden to our health care system.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".