Table 2.

Summary of published studies on outcomes of simple limbal epithelial transplantation (SLET) for the treatment of various ocular surface pathologies

Most common indication (number of eyes)	Author	Year	Country	Study design	Total number of eyes	Amount of limbal tissue harvested	Success rate in percentage (Number of eyes)	Percentage of eyes with 2-line improvement in BCVA (Number of eyes)	Percentage of eyes which underwent simultaneous/ subsequent LK/PK	Mean follow-up in years (range)
Chemical burn (5)	Sangwan et al.[10]	2012	India	R	6	2×2 mm/1 clock h	100 (6/6)	100 (6/6)	None	0.8 (0.6-1)
Chemical burn (2)	Amescua et al.[14]	2014	U.S.A	R	4	2×2 mm/1 clock h	100 (4/4)	NA	None	0.6 (0.5-0.75)
Simultaneously after primary pterygium excision (9)	Hernadez- Bogantes et al.[17]	2015	Mexico	R	9	2×2 mm from ipsilateral eye	100 (9/9)	NA	NA	0.67
Chemical burn (125)	Basu et al.[11]	2016	India	P	125	2×2 mm/1 clock h	76 (95/125)	75 (94/125)	8 (10/125)	1.5 (1-4)
Chemical burn (62)	Vazirani et al.[12]	2016	Multi-centre	R	68	1-2 clock hours	84 (57/68)	65 (44/68)	7 (5/68)	1 (0.5-4.9)
Chemical burn (4)	Quieroz et al.[29]	2016	Brazil	R	4	4×2 mm	50 (2/4)	24 (1/4)	None	0.5
Chemical burn (26)	Gupta et al.[13]	2018	India	P	30	1-2 clock h	70 (21/30)	50 (15/30)	10 (3/30)	1.1 (0.5-3.4)
Simultaneously after OSSN excision (8)	Kaliki et al.[15]	2017	India	R	8	1 clock hour from ipsilateral or contralateral eye	100 (8/8)	NA	NA	1
Simultaneously after recurrent pterygium excision (4)	Mednick et al.[18]	2018	Canada	R	4	4×2mm	100 (4/4)	NA	NA	1.2 (0.7-2.5)
Chemical burn-eyes with previous failed CLET (30)	Basu et al.[20]	2018	India	R	30	1 clock h	80 (24/30)	NA	13 (4/30)	2.3 (0.8-3.8)

OSSN=ocular surface squamous neoplasia; R=retrospective; P=prospective; SLET=simple limbal epithelial transplantation; BCVA=best-corrected visual acuity; LK=lamellar keratoplasty; PK=penetrating keratoplasty; NA=not applicable; CLET=Cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation