4.3 Article

Optimizing Genipin Concentration for Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking: An ex vivo Study

Journal

OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 100-108

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000487950

Keywords

Corneal surgery; Corneal pharmacology; Corneal collagen cross-linking; Corneal ectatic diseases; Keratoconus; Genipin

Categories

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnologico Industrial (CDTI), CENIT: Customized Eye Care, CeyeC [CEN-20091021]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Studying genipin variable concentrations, treatment durations, and delivery methods as a substance to increase corneal stiffness by inducing corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL). Materials and Methods: 100 bovine corneas treated with different genipin concentrations (0.1, 0.5, and 1%) and treatment durations (15 min, 40 min, 2 h, and 3 days) through different delivery methods compared to 10 controls treated with riboflavin/UV. Histology examination, enzymatic digestion with collagenase and thermal differential scanning calorimetry were performed on the different samples. Results: Bovine corneas soaked in 0.5% genipin morphologically showed 4.7% CXL in comparison to 5.6% in controls (p < 0.05). Corneas treated with topical 0.5% genipin, by a 140-mu L drop applied hourly for 2 h, showed 7% corneal CXL. Corneas treated with topical genipin 0.5% for 30 min, 1 and 2 h showed 54 +/- 6,40 +/- 7, and 39 +/- 9% enzymatic degradation, respectively, in comparison to controls (74%). Corneas treated with 0.5% genipin for 1, 2, and 8 h showed higher thermal denaturation resistance (Td values of 64.9 +/- 0.3,64.7 +/- 0.0 and 67.3 +/- 0.9), respectively, in comparison to the control group (64.6 +/- 0.5) (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Genipin 0.5%, in a 140-mu L drop applied hourly for 2 h, showed better potential to enhance corneal stiffness and Stability through inducing CXL. (C) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available