4.5 Article

Preserved Corneal Lamellar Grafting Reduces Inflammation and Promotes Wound Healing in a Scleral Defect Rabbit Model

Journal

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.7.38

Keywords

preserved cornea; lamellar grafting; scleromalacia

Categories

Funding

  1. Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund [03-20190050]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To investigate the effect of preserved corneal lamellar grafting on inflammation and wound healing and to compare its effect with that of preserved scleral grafting in a scleral defect rabbit model. Methods: New Zealand White rabbits were assigned to a corneal lamellar grafting group (n = 5) or a scleral grafting group (n = 5). After lamellar dissection of superotemporal sclera using 6.0-mm trephine, the same sizes of preserved human corneal or scleral grafts were transplanted with 10-0 nylon interrupted sutures. The grafted areas were photodocumented at 3 to 21 days after surgery to evaluate epithelial wound healing index (%), neovascularization and presence of filaments. The existence of CD3(+) T cells and CD34(+) cells at the grafted areas was analyzed at 21 days. Results: Epithelial wound healing index was significantly higher in the corneal grafting group at 9 days (P<0.05). Scleral grafts showed copious formation of filaments adherent to the engrafted area from 9 to 14 days, whereas the corneal grafts were free of filaments. The numbers of inflammatory cells were significantly higher in the scleral grafts (P < 0.05), and CD3(+) T cells and CD34(+) cells were populated within inflammatory cells at graft-recipient junctions in both groups. The mean areas of the estimated perigraft and intragraft neovascularization tended to be higher in scleral grafts. Conclusions: Preserved corneal lamellar grafting enhances epithelial wound healing and alleviates inflammation in a scleral defect rabbit model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available