Systematic review of clinical research on regenerative medicine for the cornea.

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

To conduct a systematic review of clinical research on the use of regenerative medicine for the cornea in human patients. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library was performed in May 2020. Forty-two articles were identified. Thirty-eight of those articles focused on the treatment for limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD), of which 17 articles involved autologous cultured limbal epithelial cell sheet transplantation (CLET), 13 involved allogeneic CLET, and 14 involved autologous cultured oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet transplantation (COMET). For autologous CLET, the median ocular surface reconstruction rate, visual recovery rate, incidence of immunologic rejection, infectious keratitis, and ocular hypertension/glaucoma were 74.1%, 54.5%, 0%, 4.6%, and 6.3%, respectively. For allogeneic CLET, they were 71.4%, 71.4%, 7.1%, 12.0%, and 7.1%, respectively. For autologous COMET, they were 66.7%, 66.7%, 0%, 5.3%, and 8.1%, respectively. Systemic immunosuppressants and steroid medications were predominantly used following allogeneic CLET, whereas they were not routinely used after autologous CLET. Three studies focused on the treatment of keratoconus using autologous adipose-derived adult stem cells and reported no marked adverse events. One study reported on the treatment of bullous keratopathy using allogeneic cultured corneal endothelial cells. All patien

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.