| Literature DB >> 31047800 |
Kiranjit K Bains1, Hideki Fukuoka2, Greg M Hammond3, Chie Sotozono4, Andrew J Quantock5.
Abstract
A healthy corneal epithelium, which is essential for proper vision and protection from external pathogens, is continuously replenished throughout life by stem cells located at the limbus. In diseased or injured eyes, however, in which stem cells are deficient, severe ocular problems manifest themselves. These are notoriously difficult to manage and as a result the last 20 or so years has seen a number of therapeutic strategies emerge that aim to recover the ocular surface and restore vision in limbal stem cell deficient eyes. The dominant concept involves the generation of laboratory cultivated epithelial cell sheets expanded from small biopsies of the epithelial limbus (for patient or donors) or another non-corneal epithelial tissue such as the oral mucosa. Typically, cells are grown on sterilised human amniotic membrane as a substrate, which then forms part of the graft, or specially formulated plastic culture dishes from which cells sheets can be released by lowering the temperature, and thus the adherence of the plastic to the cells. Overall, clinical results are promising, as is discussed, with new cultivation methodologies and different cell lineages currently being investigated to augment the treatment options for visual disturbance caused by a corneal epithelial limbal stem cell deficiency.Entities:
Keywords: Cornea; Corneal epithelium; Limbal stem cell deficiency; Ocular surface disease
Year: 2019 PMID: 31047800 PMCID: PMC6611221 DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2019.04.006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cont Lens Anterior Eye ISSN: 1367-0484 Impact factor: 3.077
Fig. 1Clinical photographs of the patient's eye before (A,B) and after (C,D) allogenic cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation (CLET). Ocular surface squamous neoplasia (OSSN) recurred and covered the entire corneal surface at 6-years post tumor resection (A). Fluorescein staining of the same eye showed an irregular ocular surface (B). CLET was performed combined with tumor resection, and phacoemulsification and intraocular lens transplantation (PEA + IOL). At 1-year post CLET, the cornea was covered by healthy corneal epithelial cells derived from the transplanted cultured corneal epithelial cell sheet (C). Fluorescein staining showed a smooth and stable corneal surface (D). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved from 0.15 to 0.7.
Fig. 2Clinical photographs of the patient's eye before (A) and after (B,C,D) autologous cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET). COMET was performed combined with keratectomy, amniotic membrane transplantation, and PEA + IOL for end-stage ocular pemphigoid with keratinization and symblepharon (A). Symblepharon was successfully released, and non-keratinized epithelium derived from the cultivated oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet covered the entire corneal surface at 3-years post COMET (B), and BCVA improved from hand motion to count fingers post COMET. Fluorescein staining of the same eye post-COMET showed no epithelial damage (C). COMET enabled the use of a tear-exchangeable, limbal, rigid CL, and BCVA improved to 0.05 via the use of this CL (D).
Summary of Published Studies Using Limbal Epithelial Stem Cells.
| ARTICLE (ref) | NUMBER OF EYES/Px | AUTO/ALLO-GRAFT | TISSUE TYPE | FEEDER CELL LAYER | SUBSTRATE | PATHOLOGY | MEAN FOLLOW UP (MONTHS) | VA IMPROVEMENT | SUCCESS RATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tsubota et al. 1999 [ | 43/39 | Allo | LESC | N | AM | SJS/OCP 25 | 28.2 | 60% | – |
| Schwab et al. 2000 [ | 14/14 | Auto 10 | LESC | Y | D-AM | NS | 13 | – | 71.4% |
| Tsai et al. 2000 [ | 6/6 | Auto | LESC | N | AM | Chem 3 | 15 | 83% | – |
| Koizumi et al. 2001 [ | 13/11 | Allo | CAD | Y | D-AM | SJS 7 | 11.2 | – | – |
| Grueterich et al. 2002 [ | 1/1 | Auto | LESC | N | AM | Chem 1 | 21 | – | – |
| Shimazaki et al. 2002 [ | 13/13 | Allo | CAD 7 | Y | AM | SJS 8 | NS | – | 46.2% |
| Sangwan et al. 2003 [ | 2/1 | Auto | LESC | Y | D-AM | Chem 1 | 12 | – | – |
| Nakamura et al. 2004 [ | 1/1 | Auto | LESC | Y | D-AM | Chem 1 | 19 | – | 100% |
| Daya et al. 2005 [ | 10/10 | Allo | CAD 9 | Y | AM | SJS 3 | 28 | 40% | 70% |
| Nakamura et al. 2006 [ | 9/9 | Auto 2 | LESC | Y | D-AM | SJS 2 | 14.6 | 100% | 100% |
| Sangwan et al. 2006 [ | 88/86 | Auto | LESC | N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 78 | 18.3 | – | 73.1% |
| Ang et al. 2007 [ | 2/1 | Allo | CAD | Y | D-AM | SJS 1 | NS | – | – |
| Fatima et al. 2007 [ | 1/1 | Auto | LESC | Y | AM | Chem 1 | 37 | – | 60% |
| Shimazaki et al. 2007 [ | 27/27 | Auto 7 | LESC | N | D-AM | SJS 13 | 29.2 | 48.1% | 59.3% |
| Kawashima et al. 2007 [ | 6/6 | Auto 2 | LESC | Y | D-AM | Chem 3 | 6.8 | – | – |
| Shortt et al. 2008 [ | 10/10 | Auto 3 | LESC | N | AM | Chem 4 | 13 | – | 60% |
| Kolli et al. 2009 [ | 8/8 | Auto | LESC | Y | AM | NS | 19 | 62.5% | 100% |
| Meller et al. 2009 [ | 1/1 | Allo | LRD | NS | AM | Other 1 | 31 | – | – |
| Satake et al. 2009 [ | 1/1 | Auto | LESC | Y | D-AM | Other 1 | 43 | – | – |
| Baradaran-Rafii et al. 2010 [ | 8/8 | Auto | LESC | N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 8 | 34 | – | – |
| Thanos et al. 2010 [ | 1/1 | Auto | LESC | N | AM | Other 1 | 28 | – | – |
| Sangwan et al. 2011 [ | 200/200 | Auto | LESC | N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 200 | 36 | 60.5% | 71% |
| Sharma et al. 2011 [ | 50/50 | Auto 34 | LESC 34 | N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 18 | 11 | 68% | 74% |
| Basu et al. 2012 [ | 50/50 | Auto | LESC | N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 50 | 27.6 | 76% | 66% |
| Prabhasawat et al. 2012 [ | 19/18 | Auto 12 | LESC | N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 13 | 26.1 | 68.4% | 73.7% |
| Pathak et al. 2012 [ | 9/9 | Auto | LESC | N | AM | Therm/Chem 8 | 11-28 | – | 55.6% |
| Sejpal et al. 2013 [ | 107/107 | Auto | LESC | N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 107 | 41.2 | 54.2% | 46.7% |
| Sharma et al. 2013 [ | 4/4 | Auto | LESC | NS | D-AM | Therm/Chem 4 | 19.5 | 100% | – |
| Subramaniam et al. 2013 [ | 40/39 | Auto | LESC | N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 36 | 33 | 38% | – |
| Qi et al. 2013 [ | 42/41 | Allo | CAD | Y | D-AM | Therm/Chem 41 | 12 | – | – |
| Amescua et al. 2014 [ | 4/4 | Auto | LESC | N | AM | Chem 2 | 7.5 | 100% | 100% |
| Qi et al. 2014 [ | 16/15 | Allo | CAD | Y | D-AM | Therm/Chem15 | 12 | – | 80% |
| Vazirani et al. 2014 [ | 70/70 | Auto | LESC | N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 64 | 17.5 | – | – |
| Zakaria et al. 2014 [ | 18/12 | Auto 15 | LESC | N | D-AM | Chem 7 | 24 | – | 67% |
| Ramírez et al. 2015 [ | 20/19 | Auto 11 | LESC | N | D-AM | Chem 7 | 36 | – | 80% |
AM=Human Amniotic Membrane. Allo = Allograft. Auto = Autograft. CAD = Cadaver. Chem = Chemical. D-AM = Denuded Human Amniotic Membrane. ED = Ectodermal Dysplasia. LESC = Limbal Epithelial Stem Cells. LRD = Living Relative Donor NS = Not Stipulated. OCP = ocular cicatricial pemphigoid. Px = Patient. SJS = Steven Johnson syndrome. Therm = Thermal. VA = Visual Acuity.
Areas void of information are the result of values not explicitly being provided in the relevant journal articles.
Summary of Published Studies Using Oral Mucosal Epithelial Cells.
| ARTICLE (ref) | NUMBER OF EYES/Px | AUTO/ALLO- GRAFT | TISSUE TYPE | FEEDER CELL LAYER | SUBSTRATE | PATHOLOGY | MEAN FOLLOW UP (MONTHS) | VA IMPROVEMENT | SUCCESS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nakamura et al. 2004 [ | 6/4 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | SJS 3 | 13.8 | 100% | – |
| Nishida et al. 2004 [ | 4/4 | Auto | Oral | Y | TRS | SJS 1 | 14 | 100% | – |
| Ang et al. 2006 [ | 10/10 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | Therm/Chem 2 | 12.6 | 90% | – |
| Inatomi et al. 2006 [ | 2/2 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | Chem 1 | 22.5 | – | – |
| Inatomi et al. 2006 [ | 15/12 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | Therm/Chem 6 | 20 | 67% | 67% |
| Nakamura et al. 2007 [ | 6/5 | Auto | Oral | NS | AM | SJS 3 | NS | – | 66.7% |
| Satake et al. 2008 [ | 4/4 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | SJS 2 | 6-24 | – | – |
| Chen et al. 2009 [ | 4/4 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | Therm/Chem 4 | 22 | – | – |
| Ma et al.2009 [ | 6/5 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | Therm/Chem 5 | 29.6 | – | – |
| Nakamura et al. 2010 [ | 19/17 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | Therm/Chem 1 | 55 | 95% | – |
| Priya et al. 2011 [ | 10/10 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | SJS 1 | 18.6 | – | – |
| Takeda et al. 2011 [ | 3/3 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | Therm/Chem 3 | 30 | – | – |
| Burillon et al. 2012 [ | 26/25 | Auto | Oral | Y | TRS | Therm/Chem 9 | 12 | – | 64% |
| Chen et al. 2012 [ | 6/6 | Auto | Oral | Y | D-AM | Therm/Chem 6 | 36.7 | – | – |
| Sotozono et al. 2013 [ | 46/40 | Auto | Oral | Y | AM | Therm/Chem 7 | 28.7 | 48% | – |
| Kolli et al. 2014 [ | 2/2 | Auto | Oral | N | AM | Chem 2 | 24 | – | – |
| Sotozono et al. 2014 [ | 10/9 | Auto | Oral | Y/N | D-AM | Therm/Chem 5 | 23.3 | – | – |
| Prabhasawat et al. 2016 [ | 20/18 | Auto | Oral | N | D-AM | Chem/Therm 7 | 31.9 | 70% | 75% |
Allo = Allograft. AM=Human Amniotic Membrane. Auto = Autograft. CAD = Cadaver. D-AM = Denuded Human Amniotic Membrane. Therm = Thermal. Chem = Chemical. LRD = Living Relative Donor. NS = Not Stipulated. OCP = ocular cicatricial pemphigoid. Px = Patient. SJS = Steven Johnson syndrome. TRS = Temperature Responsive Surface. VA = Visual Acuity.
Areas void of information are the result of values not explicitly being provided in the relevant journal articles.