NCT00566605: Conventional versus laser-enabled corneal transplant

Medicine Signal Editorial Desk
Updated 2026-10-10

Registry status when checked 2026-10-10Unknown

Study: Traditional penetrating keratoplasty versus IntraLase-enabled corneal transplantation for keratoconus at Hospital Oftalmológico de Sorocaba, Brazil. 1 2

Design and measurements: The registry describes a randomized, single-masked comparison involving 60 actual participants. Conventional mechanical trephination was compared with femtosecond-laser-enabled graft preparation, with postoperative visual recovery among the intended assessments. 1 2

What is established: The inspected record has unknown status, with a November 2007 update. That is a stale registry status, not evidence of present recruitment. No comparative visual-acuity, astigmatism, wound-complication, or graft-survival result was verified. This procedure is corneal transplantation; it should not be described as ordinary LASIK or evidence that a laser eliminates the risks of transplantation. 1 2

Sources

1. ClinicalTrials.gov — ClinicalTrials.gov — NCT00566605. Original study registration: sponsor, design, population, endpoints and dated history.Original study registration · Original record checked against the registry API. Checked 2026-10-10. Registration and current registry fields do not by themselves establish efficacy. Historical details in the article retain their stated date. Supplied note: ClinicalTrials.gov — NCT00566605. Original study registration: sponsor, design, population, endpoints and dated history.

2. ICH GCP — ICH GCP — readable reproduction of the sponsor-submitted ClinicalTrials.gov record. Supports the registration details quoted here; not an independent clinical-results publication.Cited supporting source · Link and description preserved from supplied research. Checked in supplied research dated 2026-10-10. Source description comes from supplied research; underlying page was not independently re-read for this update.