-
European Journal of Dermatology : EJD Oct 2016Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small... (Review)
Review
Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small cell lung, prostate, gastric, head and neck, and ovarian cancers, as well as in the adjuvant setting for operable node-positive breast cancers. Although the true incidence of dermatological adverse events (AEs) in patients receiving taxanes is not known, and has never been prospectively analysed, they clearly represent one of the major AEs associated with these agents. With an increase in the occurrence of cutaneous AEs during treatment with novel targeted and immunological therapies when used in combination with taxanes, a thorough understanding of reactions attributable to this class is imperative. Moreover, identification and management of dermatological AEs is critical for maintaining the quality of life in cancer patients and for minimizing dose modifications of their antineoplastic regimen. This analysis represents a systematic review of the dermatological conditions reported with the use of these drugs, complemented by experience at comprehensive cancer centres. The conditions reported herein include skin, hair, and nail toxicities. Lastly, we describe the dermatological data available for the new, recently FDA-and EMA- approved, solvent-free nab-paclitaxel.
Topics: Alopecia; Antineoplastic Agents; Docetaxel; Drug Eruptions; Edema; Humans; Lupus Erythematosus, Cutaneous; Nail Diseases; Paclitaxel; Pigmentation Disorders; Radiodermatitis; Taxoids
PubMed: 27550571
DOI: 10.1684/ejd.2016.2833 -
PloS One 2016Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) is the only effective drug approved by US FDA to treat ischemic stroke, and it contains pleiotropic effects besides... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator Induces Neurological Side Effects Independent on Thrombolysis in Mechanical Animal Models of Focal Cerebral Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) is the only effective drug approved by US FDA to treat ischemic stroke, and it contains pleiotropic effects besides thrombolysis. We performed a meta-analysis to clarify effect of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) on cerebral infarction besides its thrombolysis property in mechanical animal stroke.
METHODS
Relevant studies were identified by two reviewers after searching online databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and ScienceDirect, from 1979 to 2016. We identified 6, 65, 17, 12, 16, 12 and 13 comparisons reporting effect of endogenous tPA on infarction volume and effects of rtPA on infarction volume, blood-brain barrier, brain edema, intracerebral hemorrhage, neurological function and mortality rate in all 47 included studies. Standardized mean differences for continuous measures and risk ratio for dichotomous measures were calculated to assess the effects of endogenous tPA and rtPA on cerebral infarction in animals. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable score. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plot, Trim and Fill method and Egger's test were obtained to detect publication bias.
RESULTS
We found that both endogenous tPA and rtPA had not enlarged infarction volume, or deteriorated neurological function. However, rtPA would disrupt blood-brain barrier, aggravate brain edema, induce intracerebral hemorrhage and increase mortality rate.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis reveals rtPA can lead to neurological side effects besides thrombolysis in mechanical animal stroke, which may account for clinical exacerbation for stroke patients that do not achieve vascular recanalization with rtPA.
Topics: Animals; Animals, Genetically Modified; Blood-Brain Barrier; Brain Edema; Cerebral Infarction; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Disease Models, Animal; Male; Rats; Recombinant Proteins; Sensitivity and Specificity; Stroke; Thrombolytic Therapy; Tissue Plasminogen Activator
PubMed: 27387385
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158848 -
Clinical Kidney Journal Jun 2016There is growing evidence that adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) may be effective in treating various forms of glomerular diseases. However, the efficacy of treatment...
BACKGROUND
There is growing evidence that adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) may be effective in treating various forms of glomerular diseases. However, the efficacy of treatment and frequency of adverse effects associated with the use of ACTH in glomerular diseases are unknown. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception through 18 July 2015. Studies assessing the efficacy and safety of ACTH treatment in adults with glomerular diseases were included.
RESULTS
Of the 343 identified citations, 18 evaluated the drug efficacy and 12 evaluated the adverse effects. The most common glomerular diseases were membranous nephropathy (MN), primary focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) and minimal change disease (MCD). The overall rate of complete remission in MN was 80% at 0-6 months, 69% at >6-12 months, 90% at >12-24 months and 95% beyond 24 months of follow-up. Fifty percent of primary FSGS and MCD patients treated with ACTH were in remission at 6 months, but the relapse rate was high after ACTH discontinuation (17%). Evidence of ACTH efficacy for other glomerular diseases was scarce. Edema was the most commonly reported adverse effect {incidence rate [IR] 0.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04-0.18]} followed by insomnia [IR 0.08 (95% CI 0.03-0.15)]. The dropout rate due to adverse events was 7%, mostly due to edema and weight gain.
CONCLUSIONS
ACTH is a well-tolerated therapy and is most promising when treating patients with MN. There may be a potential role for ACTH in patients with MCD and FSGS, but data are lacking.
PubMed: 27274822
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfw045 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Oct 2015The morbidity and mortality associated with metastatic disease to brain make this problem a formidable challenge faced by health care providers and caregivers. The aim... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The morbidity and mortality associated with metastatic disease to brain make this problem a formidable challenge faced by health care providers and caregivers. The aim of this review is to summarize management for patients with brain metastases with a particular focus on symptom management.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed. Outcomes of interest included survival, brain control (local in field and whole brain). In particular, symptom control (quality of life, neurological function and neurocognition) was examined.
RESULTS
Steroids provide relief of symptoms due to intra-cerebral edema. The steroid of choice is dexamethasone. Anti-seizure medications should not be given as prophylaxis but instead be given for treatment of seizures. Depending on patient, tumour and treatment factors, management for brain metastases range from optimal supportive care including the use of steroids, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), radiosurgery, surgery alone or in combination. Surgery or radiosurgery improves survival for selected patients with single brain metastasis as compared to WBRT alone. Ongoing research topics include focal postoperative cavity radiation, focal fractionated regimens, molecular targeted therapies, chemoprevention of brain metastases and neurocognitive protection (such as neuro-protective drugs and radiation techniques such as hippocampal sparing).
CONCLUSIONS
The management of brain metastases has evolved over the decades. Other than survival and brain control (local in-field and whole brain), the outcomes of quality of life and neurocognition are becoming increasingly important.
Topics: Brain Neoplasms; Breast Neoplasms; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Melanoma; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Palliative Care; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26541403
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2224-5820.2015.09.01 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Dehydration is an important cause of death in patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). Parenteral fluids are often required in patients with fluid requirements in excess... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dehydration is an important cause of death in patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). Parenteral fluids are often required in patients with fluid requirements in excess of their oral intake. The peripheral intravenous route is the most commonly used method of parenteral access, but inserting and maintaining an intravenous line can be challenging in the context of EVD. Therefore it is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of different routes for achieving parenteral access (e.g. intravenous, intraosseous, subcutaneous and intraperitoneal).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the reliability, ease of use and speed of insertion of different parenteral access methods.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran the search on 17 November 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), clinicaltrials.gov and screened reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing different parenteral routes for the infusion of fluids or medication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors examined the titles and abstracts of records obtained by searching the electronic databases to determine eligibility. Two review authors extracted data from the included trials and assessed the risk of bias. Outcome measures of interest were success of insertion; time required for insertion; number of insertion attempts; number of dislodgements; time period with functional access; local site reactions; clinicians' perception of ease of administration; needlestick injury to healthcare workers; patients' discomfort; and mortality. For trials involving the administration of fluids we also collected data on the volume of fluid infused, changes in serum electrolytes and markers of renal function. We rated the quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: success of insertion, time required for insertion, number of dislodgements, volume of fluid infused and needlestick injuries.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 trials involving 885 participants. Parenteral access was used to infuse fluids in 11 trials and medications in six trials. None of the trials involved patients with EVD. Intravenous and intraosseous access was compared in four trials; intravenous and subcutaneous access in 11; peripheral intravenous and intraperitoneal access in one; saphenous vein cutdown and intraosseous access in one; and intraperitoneal with subcutaneous access in one. All of the trials assessing the intravenous method involved peripheral intravenous access.We judged few trials to be at low risk of bias for any of the assessed domains.Compared to the intraosseous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (risk ratio (RR) 3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.39 to 6.33; n = 242; GRADE rating: low). We did not pool data for time to insertion but estimates from the trials suggest that inserting intravenous access takes longer (GRADE rating: moderate). Clinicians judged the intravenous route to be easier to insert (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; n = 182). A larger volume of fluids was infused via the intravenous route (GRADE rating: moderate). There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcomes, including adverse events.Compared to the subcutaneous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (RR 14.79, 95% CI 2.87 to 76.08; n = 238; GRADE rating: moderate) and dislodgement of the device (RR 3.78, 95% CI 1.16 to 12.34; n = 67; GRADE rating: low). Clinicians also judged the intravenous route as being more difficult to insert and patients were more likely to be agitated in the intravenous group. Patients in the intravenous group were more likely to develop a local infection and phlebitis, but were less likely to develop erythema, oedema or swelling than those in the subcutaneous group. A larger volume of fluids was infused into patients via the intravenous route. There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.There were insufficient data to reliably determine if the risk of insertion failure differed between the saphenous vein cutdown (SVC) and intraosseous method (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.13; GRADE rating: low). Insertion using SVC took longer than the intraosseous method (MD 219.60 seconds, 95% CI 135.44 to 303.76; GRADE rating: moderate). There were no data and therefore there was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.There were insufficient data to reliably determine the relative effects of intraperitoneal or central intravenous access relative to any other parenteral access method.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are several different ways of achieving parenteral access in patients who are unable meet their fluid requirements with oral intake alone. The quality of the evidence, as assessed using the GRADE criteria, is somewhat limited because of the lack of adequately powered trials at low risk of bias. However, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to draw the following conclusions: if peripheral intravenous access can be achieved easily, this allows infusion of larger volumes of fluid than other routes; but if this is not possible, the intraosseous and subcutaneous routes are viable alternatives. The subcutaneous route may be suitable for patients who are not severely dehydrated but in whom ongoing fluid losses cannot be met by oral intake.A film to accompany this review can be viewed here (http://youtu.be/ArVPzkf93ng).
Topics: Dehydration; Disease Management; Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola; Humans; Hypodermoclysis; Infusions, Intraosseous; Infusions, Intravenous; Infusions, Parenteral; Saphenous Vein
PubMed: 25914907
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011386.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a thickening of the central retina, or the macula, and is associated with long-term visual loss in people with diabetic retinopathy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a thickening of the central retina, or the macula, and is associated with long-term visual loss in people with diabetic retinopathy (DR). Clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO) is the most severe form of DMO. Almost 30 years ago, the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) found that CSMO, diagnosed by means of stereoscopic fundus photography, leads to moderate visual loss in one of four people within three years. It also showed that grid or focal laser photocoagulation to the macula halves this risk. Recently, intravitreal injection of antiangiogenic drugs has also been used to try to improve vision in people with macular oedema due to DR.Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is based on optical reflectivity and is able to image retinal thickness and structure producing cross-sectional and three-dimensional images of the central retina. It is widely used because it provides objective and quantitative assessment of macular oedema, unlike the subjectivity of fundus biomicroscopic assessment which is routinely used by ophthalmologists instead of photography. Optical coherence tomography is also used for quantitative follow-up of the effects of treatment of CSMO.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of OCT for detecting DMO and CSMO, defined according to ETDRS in 1985, in patients referred to ophthalmologists after DR is detected. In the update of this review we also aimed to assess whether OCT might be considered the new reference standard for detecting DMO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (January 1950 to June 2013), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S) (January 1990 to June 2013), BIOSIS Previews (January 1969 to June 2013), MEDION and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility database (ARIF). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 25 June 2013. We checked bibliographies of relevant studies for additional references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of any OCT model for detecting DMO or CSMO in patients with DR who were referred to eye clinics. Diabetic macular oedema and CSMO were diagnosed by means of fundus biomicroscopy by ophthalmologists or stereophotography by ophthalmologists or other trained personnel.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently extracted data on study characteristics and measures of accuracy. We assessed data using random-effects hierarchical sROC meta-analysis models.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies (830 participants, 1387 eyes), published between 1998 and 2012. Prevalence of CSMO was 19% to 65% (median 50%) in nine studies with CSMO as the target condition. Study quality was often unclear or at high risk of bias for QUADAS 2 items, specifically regarding study population selection and the exclusion of participants with poor quality images. Applicablity was unclear in all studies since professionals referring patients and results of prior testing were not reported. There was a specific 'unit of analysis' issue because both eyes of the majority of participants were included in the analyses as if they were independent.In nine studies providing data on CSMO (759 participants, 1303 eyes), pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.83) and specificity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.93). The median central retinal thickness cut-off we selected for data extraction was 250 µm (range 230 µm to 300 µm). Central CSMO was the target condition in all but two studies and thus our results cannot be applied to non-central CSMO.Data from three studies reporting accuracy for detection of DMO (180 participants, 343 eyes) were not pooled. Sensitivities and specificities were about 0.80 in two studies and were both 1.00 in the third study.Since this review was conceived, the role of OCT has changed and has become a key ingredient of decision-making at all levels of ophthalmic care in this field. Moreover, disagreements between OCT and fundus examination are informative, especially false positives which are referred to as subclinical DMO and are at higher risk of developing clinical CSMO.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using retinal thickness thresholds lower than 300 µm and ophthalmologist's fundus assessment as reference standard, central retinal thickness measured with OCT was not sufficiently accurate to diagnose the central type of CSMO in patients with DR referred to retina clinics. However, at least OCT false positives are generally cases of subclinical DMO that cannot be detected clinically but still suffer from increased risk of disease progression. Therefore, the increasing availability of OCT devices, together with their precision and the ability to inform on retinal layer structure, now make OCT widely recognised as the new reference standard for assessment of DMO, even in some screening settings. Thus, this review will not be updated further.
Topics: Diabetic Retinopathy; Diagnostic Errors; Humans; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retina; Selection Bias; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, Optical Coherence
PubMed: 25564068
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008081.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a common complication of diabetic retinopathy. Although grid or focal laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of visual loss in DMO, or clinically significant macular oedema (CSMO), vision is rarely improved. Antiangiogenic therapy with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) modalities is used to try to improve vision in people with DMO.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effects in preserving and improving vision and acceptability, including the safety, compliance with therapy and quality of life, of antiangiogenic therapy with anti-VEGF modalities for the treatment of DMO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to April 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 April 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antiangiogenic drugs with an anti-VEGF mechanism of action versus another treatment, sham treatment or no treatment in people with DMO.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. The risk ratios (RR) for visual loss and visual gain of three or more lines of logMAR visual acuity were estimated at one year of follow-up (plus or minus six months) after treatment initiation.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen studies provided data on four comparisons of interest in this review. Participants in the trials had central DMO and moderate vision loss.Compared with grid laser photocoagulation, people treated with antiangiogenic therapy were more likely to gain 3 or more lines of vision at one year (RR 3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 4.8, 10 studies, 1333 cases, high quality evidence) and less likely to lose 3 or more lines of vision (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24, 7 studies, 1086 cases, high quality evidence). In meta-analyses, no significant subgroup difference was demonstrated between bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for the two primary outcomes, but there was little power to detect a difference. The quality of the evidence was judged to be high, because the effect was large, precisely measured and did not vary across studies, although some studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for one or more domains. Regarding absolute benefit, we estimated that 8 out of 100 participants with DMO may gain 3 or more lines of visual acuity using photocoagulation whereas 28 would do so with antiangiogenic therapy, meaning that 100 participants need to be treated with antiangiogenic therapy to allow 20 more people (95% CI 13 to 29) to markedly improve their vision after one year. People treated with anti-VEGF on average had 1.6 lines better vision (95% CI 1.4 to 1.8) after one year compared to laser photocoagulation (9 studies, 1292 cases, high quality evidence). To achieve this result, seven to nine injections were delivered in the first year and three or four in the second, in larger studies adopting either as needed regimens with monthly monitoring or fixed regimens.In other analyses antiangiogenic therapy was more effective than sham (3 studies on 497 analysed participants, high quality evidence) and ranibizumab associated with laser was more effective than laser alone (4 studies on 919 participants, high quality evidence).Ocular severe adverse events, such as endophthalmitis, were rare in the included studies. Meta-analyses conducted for all antiangiogenic drugs compared with either sham or photocoagulation did not show a significant difference regarding serious systemic adverse events (15 studies, 441 events in 2985 participants, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17), arterial thromboembolic events (14 studies, 129 events in 3034 participants, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25) and overall mortality (63 events in 3562 participants, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47). We judged the quality of the evidence on adverse effects as moderate due to partial reporting of safety data and the exclusion of participants with previous cardiovascular events in some studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high quality evidence that antiangiogenic drugs provide a benefit compared to current therapeutic options for DMO, that is grid laser photocoagulation, in clinical trial populations at one or two years. Future research should investigate differences between drugs, effectiveness under real-world monitoring and treatment conditions, and safety in high-risk populations, particularly regarding cardiovascular risk.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Aptamers, Nucleotide; Bevacizumab; Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Laser Coagulation; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 25342124
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub4 -
Acta Ophthalmologica Nov 2014This study aims to systemically review the effect of laser iridotomy on the corneal endothelium. Searches were performed for studies that either compared corneal... (Review)
Review
This study aims to systemically review the effect of laser iridotomy on the corneal endothelium. Searches were performed for studies that either compared corneal endothelial cell density/count, corneal thickness and morphology pre- and postiridotomy, or evaluated the postiridotomy development of corneal decompensation. There were 26 eligible studies. Our review shows that the effect of laser iridotomy on the corneal endothelium has been investigated with varying results. Although it has been demonstrated to be a relatively safe procedure, there is still the potential long-term risk of corneal decompensation, for which a corneal transplantation may be indicated eventually. The longest interval between laser iridotomy and corneal decompensation reported was 8 years. Mechanisms proposed for endothelial damage include direct focal injury, thermal damage, mechanical shock waves, iris pigment dispersion, transient rise in intraocular pressure, inflammation, turbulent aqueous flow, time-dependent shear stress on endothelium, chronic breakdown of blood-aqueous barrier and damage from bubbles that settled onto the endothelium. Inherent risk factors identified were iridotrabecular contact, current or prior acute angle closure, pigmented irides, small iris-to-endothelium distance, pre-existing endothelial disease and diabetes. Intervention-related risk factors include laser type, delivery and quantity. The significance of the risk factors and their direct association with the development of corneal decompensation remain to be determined. Understanding these risk factors may allow physicians to counsel their patients better. They may offer opportunities for preventive strategies, allowing us to ensure that a procedure performed to prevent disease progression and visual loss does not cause further morbidity.
Topics: Humans; Cell Count; Corneal Edema; Endothelium, Corneal; Iridectomy; Iris; Laser Therapy; Risk Factors
PubMed: 24528451
DOI: 10.1111/aos.12367