4.6 Article

Inhibition of corneal neovascularization by subconjunctival bevacizumab in an animal model

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 145, 期 3, 页码 424-431

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.11.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of subconjunctival injection of bevacizumab on experimentally induced corneal neovascularization. DESIGN: Experimental animal study. METHODS: Twelve New Zealand white rabbits were involved, divided equally into four groups. Only one eye per rabbit was used. Topical instillation of 10 mu l 5% NaOH solution was used, under general anesthesia, to induce corneal neovascularization secondary to corneal alkali burn in groups 2, 3, and 4. A single dose of 3.75 mg (25 mg/ml) bevacizumab was injected subconjunctivally. Group 1 (control group 1) was neither cauterized nor treated. Group 2 (control group 2) received a sham injection of balanced salt solution on day 14. Group 3 was treated on day 14 (after corneal neovascularization had been established). Group 4 was treated on day 1. Digital photographs were obtained and analyzed during the entire 28,day procedure. The area of neovascularization and scarring were measured in terms of the percentage of corneal surface affected. RESULTS: On day 28, the difference of neovascularization between groups 2, 3, and 4 was found to be statistically significant at the .05 level (one-way analysis of variance [ANOVA]): group 4 (4.7% +/- 3.1%) < group 3 (13.3% +/- 2.3%) < group 2 (41.0% +/- 3.6%; P .05, Mann-Whitney U test). In group 3, the area of neovascularization decreased 14 days after treatment by 42%. Neovascularization was almost completely absent in group 4. The development of scarring was unaffected by bevacizumab (P > .1, one,way ANOVA). No side effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Subconjunctival administration of bevacizumab inhibits corneal neovascularization effectively in the rabbit experimental model, especially if administered early.

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