{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028930817610062894, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018238993710691823, 'mean_word_length': 4.981203007518797, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing ProKera With Amniotic Membrane Transplantation: Indications, Outcomes, and Costs

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of ProKera versus amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) in managing ocular surface disease. Methods: This study is a retrospective case series of patients who received either ProKera or sutured AMT for ocular surface disease. Patient demographics, treatment indications, retention time, percentage healed area, changes in visual acuity, and costs to the health care system were analyzed. Results: Fourteen patients were identified and analyzed for each group. The main indications for using ProKera and AMT were similar, including corneal ulcer or epithelial defect due to chemical burns, neurotropic state, or herpes zoster keratitis. The average time to dissolution or removal was 24.8 days in the ProKera group, compared with 50.1 days in the AMT group. The average percentage of healed corneal area was 59% for ProKera and 73% for AMT. There was no significant difference between the initial and the final visual acuity within groups and when comparing both groups. In our expense analysis, ProKera had a total cost of 699.00 Canadian dollars (CAD), whereas the cost of suture AMT was 1561.52 CAD. ProKera priced at 11.85 CAD for each percentage healed surface area and at 21.39 CAD for AMT. Conclusions: ProKera allowed for a faster corneal healing than sutured AMT, although its total healed area was less than the latter. Moreover, ProKera is more cost-effective than AMT, thus reducing financial burden to our health care system.