Literature DB >> 22149664

Short-term cell death and inflammation after intracorneal inlay implantation in rabbits.

Marcony R Santhiago1, Flavia L Barbosa, Vandana Agrawal, Perry S Binder, Bruce Christie, Steven E Wilson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the cell death and inflammatory response to insertion of the KAMRA inlay (AcuFocus Inc) for presbyopia.
METHODS: Twenty-four rabbits were included in the study. Each rabbit had pockets generated in both corneas with a femtosecond laser. One eye of each rabbit had an inlay inserted into the pocket and the opposite control eye had the pocket dissected. Eight rabbits were studied at 24 hours, 48 hours, or 6 weeks after surgery. Tissue sections were analyzed with TUNEL assay to detect cell death and immunohistochemistry for CD11b to detect monocytes as a marker of inflammation.
RESULTS: The inlay group had significantly more stromal cell death than the control group at 48 hours after surgery (P=.038). At 24 hours and 6 weeks after surgery, no significant difference was noted in stromal cell death between the inlay and control groups. Significantly more CD11b+ cells were noted in the stroma in the inlay group compared to the control group at 24 and 48 hours after surgery (P=.025 and P=.001, respectively). However, at 6 weeks after surgery, no significant difference in CD11b+ cells was observed between the control and inlay groups (P=.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Although an early increase in stromal cell death and inflammation occurred in eyes that underwent femtosecond laser pocket creation and KAMRA inlay insertion compared to a control group with the pocket only, no significant difference was noted between the inlay and control groups in stromal cell death or inflammation at 6 weeks after surgery. Copyright 2012, SLACK Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22149664     DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20111122-02

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Refract Surg        ISSN: 1081-597X            Impact factor:   3.573


  6 in total

1.  Surgical management of presbyopia.

Authors:  André Am Torricelli; Jackson B Junior; Marcony R Santhiago; Samir J Bechara
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-09-06

Review 2.  Implantable inlay devices for presbyopia: the evidence to date.

Authors:  Em Arlt; Em Krall; S Moussa; G Grabner; Ak Dexl
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-01-14

3.  Early wound healing and refractive response of different pocket configurations following presbyopic inlay implantation.

Authors:  Aris Konstantopoulos; Yu-Chi Liu; Ericia Pei Wen Teo; Nyein Chan Lwin; Gary Hin Fai Yam; Jodhbir S Mehta
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Long-term changes in keratometry and refraction after small aperture corneal inlay implantation.

Authors:  Majid Moshirfar; Jordan D Desautels; Brian D Walker; Orry C Birdsong; David F Skanchy; Tyler S Quist; Michael S Murri; Steve H Linn; Phillip C Hoopes; Phillip C Hoopes
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-10-04

5.  Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) and femtosecond laser LASIK: comparison of corneal wound healing and inflammation.

Authors:  Zixian Dong; Xingtao Zhou; Jihong Wu; Zhehuan Zhang; Tao Li; Zimei Zhou; Shenghai Zhang; Gang Li
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Vignetting and field of view with the KAMRA corneal inlay.

Authors:  Achim Langenbucher; Susanne Goebels; Nóra Szentmáry; Berthold Seitz; Timo Eppig
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 3.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.