| Literature DB >> 24835597 |
Chie Sotozono1, Tsutomu Inatomi, Takahiro Nakamura, Noriko Koizumi, Norihiko Yokoi, Mayumi Ueta, Kotone Matsuyama, Hideaki Kaneda, Masanori Fukushima, Shigeru Kinoshita.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the clinical efficacy of cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET) for the treatment of persistent epithelial defect (PED).Entities:
Keywords: acute inflammatory activity; cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET); limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD); persistent epithelial defect (PED)
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24835597 PMCID: PMC4329382 DOI: 10.1111/aos.12397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Ophthalmol ISSN: 1755-375X Impact factor: 3.761
Fig 1Study flow diagram. Seventy-two patients (81 eyes) underwent cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET) between June 2002 and December 2008, and nine patients (10 eyes) with persistent epithelial defect (PED) with accompanying acute inflammatory activity were included in this study.
Ocular surface grading system for COMET.
| Variable | Variable scores | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Variable name | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Corneal appearance | Symblepharon | No symblepharon | Involving only the conjunctiva | Less than 1/2 of the corneal surface | More than 1/2 of the corneal surface |
| Epithelial defect | No defect | Less than 1/4 of the corneal surface | 1/4–1/2 of the corneal surface | More than 1/2 of the corneal surface | |
| Conjunctivalization | Absence of conjunctivalization | Less than 1/4 of the corneal surface | 1/4–1/2 of the corneal surface | More than 1/2 of the corneal surface | |
| Neovascularization | No neovascularization | Confined to the corneal periphery | Extending up to the pupil margin | Extending beyond the pupil margin into the central cornea | |
| Opacification | Iris details clearly visualized | Partial obscuration of the iris details | Iris details poorly seen with pupil margin visible | Complete obscuration of iris and pupil details | |
| Keratinization | No corneal keratinization | Less than 1/4 of the corneal surface | 1/4–1/2 of the corneal surface | More than 1/2 of the corneal surface | |
| Conjunctival appearance | Fornix shortening (Upper) | Normal depth | Shortened by less than 1/4 | Shortened by 1/4–1/2 | Shortened by more than 1/2 |
| (Lower) | Normal depth | Shortened by less than 1/4 | Shortened by 1/4–1/2 | Shortened by more than 1/2 | |
This scoring system as previously reported has been refined by the findings on the prognostic significance of the degree or severity of ocular surface disorders obtained in this work. The scoring system could be classified broadly as corneal complications and conjunctival complications, respectively.
Summary of the clinical outcomes of COMET.
| Case No. | Disease | Age/sex | Duration of the disorder (months) | Duration of PED (months) | Eye(L/R) | Prior surgery (Y/N) | Combination surgery | Visual acuity | Total ocular surface score | Follow-up month | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | 24W | Last | Pre | 24W | Last | |||||||||
| 1 | Chemical injury | 33/M | 3 | 3 | R | Y | No | 8 | 5 | 7 | 27.2 | |||
| L | Y | No | 0.03 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 27.2 | |||||
| 2 | Thermal injury | 27/M | 3 | 3 | L | N | AMT+Eyelid surgery | 0.03 | 0.04 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 31.4 | |
| 3 | Thermal injury | 29/M | 1 | 1 | R | N | Eyelid surgery | 0.7 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 16.5 |
| 4 | Thermal injury | 61/M | 3 | 3 | R | N | AMT | 0.01 | – | 0.01 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 33 |
| 5 | SJS | 8/F | 8 | 8 | R | N | No | 0.7 | 0.1 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 39.7 | |
| 6 | SJS | 30/M | 14 | 14 | R | N | AMT | 0.02 | 0.01 | 12 | 12 | 17 | 18.4 | |
| 7 | SJS | 62/M | 15 | 15 | L | N | AMT+CS+Other | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 19.4 |
| 8 | OCP | 73/M | 42 | 3 | R | N | AMT | 0.06 | 0.09 | 17 | 3 | 3 | 9.5 | |
| 9 | OCP | 83/M | 18 | 7 | L | Y | No | 0.02 | – | 0.03 | 17 | – | 2 | 5.6 |
COMET, autologous cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation; SJS, Stevens–Johnson syndrome; OCP, ocular cicatricial pemphigoid; AMT, amniotic membrane transplantation; CS, cataract surgery; F, female; M, male; Y, yes; N, no.
Visual acuity below 0.01 is shown in italics. Counting fingers, hand motion and light perception were determined to be 0.004, 0.002 and 0.001, respectively.
Asterisks (*) indicates cases in which foetal bovine serum (FBS) was used as a culture medium for the epithelial sheet. We used autologous serum (AS) in other cases.
Fig 2Slit-lamp appearances of all eyes with PED treated by cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET). (Left two columns) Preoperatively, epithelial defect persisted in all eyes, with massive inflammation on the ocular surface. Note the subconjunctival fibrosis around the PED. (Right two columns) Ocular surface appearance at the 24th postoperative week. Ocular surface stabilization and complete epithelialization were achieved in all eyes.
Fig 3Clinical courses of the contralateral eyes not treated with COMET. Note the non-infectious corneal stromal melting and perforation in Case 6 (left), the MRSA infection in Case 7 (middle) and the cicatrization in Case 8 after PED with acute inflammatory activity (right).
Fig 4Preoperative and postoperative scores of ocular surface. (A) Preoperative and postoperative scores of the corneal epithelial defects. The epithelial defect scores for each patient were calculated using the previously reported grading system (Sotozono et al. 2007). The scores before surgery and at the 4th, 12th and 24th postoperative weeks and at the final follow-up examination were calculated. The change from baseline at each visit, except for the final visit, was analysed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The bottom and top lines of the box represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. The circles represent the individual scores of the patients. The horizontal lines below and above the box represent the lowest and highest values, respectively (or are located 1.5 times the interquartile range away from the box). *p = 0.0156; **p = 0.0078 (Wilcoxon signed-rank test). (B) Preoperative and postoperative ocular surface grading score. Ocular surface grading scores for each patient were calculated using the previously reported grading system (Sotozono et al. 2007). Scores for 8 components of the ocular surface were calculated by the grading system. The total scores before surgery and at the 4th, 12th and 24th postoperative weeks and last follow-up examination were calculated. The change in ocular surface grading score from baseline at each visit, except for the last visit, was analysed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The circles represent the individual scores of the patients. The horizontal line within each box represents the median value, the bottom and top lines of the box represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, and the horizontal lines below and above the box represent the lowest and highest values, respectively (or are located 1.5 times the interquartile range away from the box). *p = 0.0234; **p = 0.0078; ***p = 0.0020 (Wilcoxon signed-rank test).