Skip to main content

Table 2 Acute surgical and non-surgical management for ocular and peri-ocular burns study outcomes

From: Acute surgical vs non-surgical management for ocular and peri-ocular burns: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AuthorGroupSample size (n)SurgeryTime to management (days)Visual acuityPain (0–10)Corneal hazeEpithelial defect diameter (mm)Epithelial defect area (mm2)Time to epithelialization (days)Healed epithelial defectSchirmerTBUT (s)Limbal ischemia (hours)
IFIFIFIFIFIF
Frank et al. [15]Surgery22FTG
Surgery10FTG, T
No surgery60
Tamhane et al. [16]Surgery20AMT2.5 ± 10.02 ± 00.3 ± 48.8 ± 22.5 ± 0.397 ± 397 ± 44 ± 4
No surgery240.1 ± 0.20.6 ± 0.48.6 ± 25.5 ± 161 ± 478 ± 45 ± 4
Lopez-Garcia et al. [17]Surgery12AMT0.2 ± 0.20.63 ± 0.2
No surgery120.2 ± 0.20.4 ± 0.2
Singh et al. [18]Surgery50DALK0.3 ± 0.60.4 ± 0.23.7 ± 0.20.2 ± 0.5
No surgery500.3 ± 00.03 ± 0.53.7 ± 0.53.6 ± 0.5
Tandon et al. [19]Surgery38AMT5 ± 120.1 ± 0.30.3 ± 13 ± 21.3 ± 347 ± 8027 ± 524.5 ± 3
No surgery367 ± 170.04 ± 10.2 ± 0.52.5 ± 30.5 ± 248 ± 11635 ± 693 ± 4
Surgery38AMT7.5 ± 120.005 ± 00.014 ± 01.5 ± 32 ± 3114 ± 9941 ± 659 ± 4
No surgery417.5 ± 120.01 ± 00.01 ± 01.3 ± 32.5 ± 3112 ± 10656 ± 634.8 ± 4
Sharma et al. [20]Surgery18AMT7 ± 30.03 ± 00.5 ± 0.42.3 ± 10.4 ± 17.7 ± 11.7 ± 176 ± 271 ± 241 ± 291813.3 ± 29.4 ± 1
No surgery206.6 ± 20.03 ± 00.3 ± 0.32.4 ± 11 ± 17.2 ± 23.2 ± 254 ± 226 ± 557.8 ± 291713.7 ± 18.6 ± 1
Sharma et al. [21]Surgery15AMT4 ± 26.4 ± 12.4 ± 11.8 ± 11 ± 16 ± 20.2 ± 138 ± 220.4 ± 122 ± 101421.2 ± 210.7 ± 27 ± 31.5 ± 2
No surgery154.2 ± 1 5.8 ± 12.2 ± 21.7 ± 11.1 ± 15.6 ± 22.6 ± 133 ± 206.8 ± 8567 ± 151018 ± 410.3 ± 46 ± 33.7 ± 3
Cabalag et al. [2]Surgery49STG, FTG, T1 ± 2
No surgery2770.6 ± 1
  1. AMT amniotic membrane transplantation, DALK deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, STG split-thickness graft, FTG full-thickness graft, T tarsorrhaphy, I Initial evaluation, F follow-up
  2. Data presented as mean ± standard deviation