4.6 Article

In vivo laser scanning confocal microscopy confirms that the human corneal sub-basal nerve plexus is a highly dynamic structure

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 49, 期 8, 页码 3409-3412

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-1951

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To add to findings in a prior study on the two-dimensional arrangement of the living human sub-basal corneal nerve plexus and determine whether it is a dynamic structure. METHODS. Laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy was performed on the left cornea of a healthy subject who had been examined with the same methodology 2 years earlier. Examinations were performed once a week for 6 weeks with the purpose of producing a two-dimensional reconstruction map of the living human sub-basal corneal nerve plexus at each session. A two-dimensional graphics program was used to arrange and map images obtained at each session into confluent montages. RESULTS. The mean dimensions of the corneal areas mapped were 4.80 +/- 0.45 mm horizontally and 4.60 +/- 0.52 mm vertically. The nerve branching patterns observed 2 years earlier did not correspond with those in any recent maps. Over the 6-week period, the sub-basal nerve pattern appeared to migrate centripetally from the corneal periphery toward an inferocentral whorl. In the region of the whorl the nerves altered their generally centripetal direction of migration, undergoing clockwise rotation. The centripetal rate of migration decreased with proximity to the center of the whorl (5.6 +/- 3.4 mu m/wk at 13 mu m from the whorl, 13.9 +/- 5.5 mu m/wk at 333 mu m from the whorl, and 25.9 +/- 8.6 mu m/wk at 698 mu m from the whorl). CONCLUSIONS. This study provides strong evidence that the living human sub-basal corneal nerve plexus is a highly dynamic structure, with continuous centripetal movement of identifiable branch points of up to 26 mu m/wk, creating dramatic pattern changes in the plexus over a 6-week period.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据