Evidence Hub

The efficacy of autologous serum in corneal healing following metallic foreign body injuries

Doğan L, Özer Ö, Baysal Z, Dursun Ö

Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025

42 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the effect of topical autologous serum (AS) on corneal healing following metallic corneal foreign body (CFB) trauma.

Method: Following the removal of CFBs with a 26-gauge needle, patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 patients received topical moxifloxacin and preservative- free artificial tears, while Group 2 participants used these drops in addition to AS five times a day. Patients were followed until their corneal epithelial defects were closed. The baseline size of the epithelial defects was measured, and corneal densitometry measurements using Pentacam HR (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) were obtained before treatment. Epithelial healing rates and post-treatment corneal densitometric measurements were compared.

Results: Group 1 comprised 41 male participants with a mean age of 36.1 ± 13.3 years, and Group 2 consisted of 42 male participants with a mean age of 34.9 ± 11.5 years. No statistically significant difference in age distribution was observed between the groups (p = 0.229). Complete epithelial closure occurred within 3.51 ± 1.03 days for Group 1 participants, whereas Group 2 participants achieved complete closure within 2.19 ± 1.10 days. A significantly faster rate of epithelial closure and a notably shorter duration were observed in Group 2 (p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, sincerely). Post-epithelial healing corneal densitometry measurements revealed significantly lower values in participants utilizing AS (p = 0.007).

Conclusion: The use…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 42 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free