Eye & contact lens · 2025
Demographics of Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency: A Literature Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fraser Daniel, Brown Meghan M, Hou Joshua H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the demographics of limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) and to report the prevalence, identifiable etiologies, and treatment outcomes as described in the literature.
METHODS: A literature review performed by querying published studies evaluating the demographics and/or epidemiology of LSCD. Three large retrospective studies from the University of Minnesota (UMN), Cincinnati Eye Institute (CEI), and LV Prasad Eye Institute (LV Prasad) were compared.
RESULTS: Average age at diagnosis for the UMN and CEI cohorts was 53.2 and 42.9 years old, respectively, whereas the median age was much younger at 24 years old in the LV Prasad cohort. The LV Prasad cohort revealed a 2:1 male predominance. Both the LV Prasad and UMN cohorts reported similar rates of unilateral vs. bilateral LSCD, whereas the CEI cohort reported bilateral LSCD in 70% of their cases. The leading cause of LSCD was ocular burns (53.7%) in the LV Prasad cohort, congenital aniridia (30.9%) in the CEI cohort, and chemical/thermal burns (18.7%) in the UMN cohort. Only the UMN study reported a disease prevalence rate, which was 4.25%.
CONCLUSIONS: There is great regional variability in the demographics of patients with LSCD. This may contribute to the difficulty in establishing accurate disease prevalence rates.
METHODS: A literature review performed by querying published studies evaluating the demographics and/or epidemiology of LSCD. Three large retrospective studies from the University of Minnesota (UMN), Cincinnati Eye Institute (CEI), and LV Prasad Eye Institute (LV Prasad) were compared.
RESULTS: Average age at diagnosis for the UMN and CEI cohorts was 53.2 and 42.9 years old, respectively, whereas the median age was much younger at 24 years old in the LV Prasad cohort. The LV Prasad cohort revealed a 2:1 male predominance. Both the LV Prasad and UMN cohorts reported similar rates of unilateral vs. bilateral LSCD, whereas the CEI cohort reported bilateral LSCD in 70% of their cases. The leading cause of LSCD was ocular burns (53.7%) in the LV Prasad cohort, congenital aniridia (30.9%) in the CEI cohort, and chemical/thermal burns (18.7%) in the UMN cohort. Only the UMN study reported a disease prevalence rate, which was 4.25%.
CONCLUSIONS: There is great regional variability in the demographics of patients with LSCD. This may contribute to the difficulty in establishing accurate disease prevalence rates.