Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To compare the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of simple limbal epithelial transplantation (SLET) with conjunctival-limbal autologous transplantation (CLAU) in severe unilateral ocular chemical burns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients of unilateral chronic ocular burns with more than 270° limbal stem cell deficiency and a healthy fellow eye were divided into two groups - ten patients of Group A underwent SLET while ten patients of Group B were operated for CLAU. Patients were followed up for 6 months and assessed for a stable epithelialized ocular surface, extent of reduction in vascularization and forniceal reconstruction, improvement in corneal clarity and visual acuity. RESULTS: A stable epithelialized corneal surface was obtained in all patients, with a significant reduction in the mean clock hours of vascularization in both the groups (P < 0.001). The mean symblepharon score showed a statistically significant reduction from 1.80 ± 1.14 to 0.30 ± 0.63 in Group A and 1.70 ± 1.06 to 0.15 ± 0.24 in Group B at 6 months. Corneal clarity, as well as best-corrected visual acuity, showed a statistically significant improvement in both the groups. CONCLUSION: Both the procedures, SLET and CLAU, were equally effective in achieving a stable ocular surface, forniceal reconstruction, and regression of corneal vascularization. The requirement of minimal donor tissue in SLET makes it a preferred option over CLAU in cases of uniocular chronic ocular burns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manudhane et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: