| Literature DB >> 33122468 |
Neslihan Sinim Kahraman1, Zeynep Burcin Gonen2, Duygu Gulmez Sevim3, Ayse Oner1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study shows the clinical data of 1-year follow-up of 8 patients with degenerative macular diseases who received suprachoroidal adipose tissue derived mesenchymal stem cell (ADMSC) implantation. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Adipose tissue; Macular diseases; Mesenchymal stem cell; Suprachoroidal implantation
Year: 2021 PMID: 33122468 PMCID: PMC7904524 DOI: 10.15283/ijsc20025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Stem Cells ISSN: 2005-3606 Impact factor: 2.500
Demographic details, clinical characteristics, visual acuity and visual field results of the treated eyes with stem cells and the untreated fellow eyes at baseline and at 1 year follow-up
| Subject No. | Age/sex/disease | Disease/study eye | BCVA baseline | BCVA 1 year | MD (dB) | MD (dB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 19/F/SMD | +0.60 | +0.70 | |||
| OS(Study eye) | +1.3 | +1.0 | 23.1 | 21.7 | ||
| 2 | 24/M/SMD | OD (Study eye) | +1.3 | +1.3 | 12.0 | 9.6 |
| +1.3 | +1.6 | |||||
| 3 | 20/M/SMD | OD (Study eye) | +2.0 | +1.5 | 28.1 | 28.6 |
| +1.6 | +2.0 | |||||
| 4 | 31/F/SMD | +1.5 | +1.6 | |||
| OS(Study eye) | +1.5 | +1.0 | 21.6 | 19.1 | ||
| 5 | 75/M/AMD | +1.0 | +1.3 | |||
| OS(Study eye) | +1.8 | +1.3 | 9.6 | 9.7 | ||
| 6 | 70/F/AMD | +0.0 | +0.0 | |||
| OS(Study eye) | +2.0 | +1.3 | 24.5 | 20.2 | ||
| 7 | 60/M/AMD | OD (Study eye) | +1.8 | +1.3 | 6.4 | 6.2 |
| +0.40 | +0.60 | |||||
| 8 | 59/M/AMD | OD (Study eye) | +2.0 | +1.3 | 18.5 | 17.9 |
| +0.70 | +1.0 |
AMD: Age related macular degeneration, BCVA: Best corrected visual acuity, logMAR: Logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution units OD: Oculus dexter, OS: Oculus sinister, SMD: Stargardts’ macular dystrophy, MD: Mean deviation dB: Decibel.
The numbers written in italics belong to the patients who experienced decrease during the follow-up period.
Fig. 1Perimetry results of an AMD subject before treatment (A) and one year after treatment (B). Note that central visual field defect decreased during the first year period. Perimetry results of the fellow eye of the same subject during the study period (C, D). Note the worsening of the central visual field defect.
Fig. 2Perimetry results of an SMD subject before treatment (A) and one year after treatment (B). Note that central visual field defect decreased during the first year period. Perimetry results of the fellow eye of the same subject during the study period (C, D). Note the worsening of the central visual field defect.
Amplitudes of mfERGtests of the patients before and 1-year after treatment mfERG= multifocal electroretinography
| mfERG parameters amplitude P1 | Baseline study eye | 1 Year study eye | Baseline fellow eye | 1 Year fellow eye |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject 1 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 365.0 | 465.0 | 381.0 | 379.0 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 247.0 | 277.0 | 282.0 | 242.0 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 266.0 | 292.0 | 271.0 | 275.0 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 235.0 | 265.0 | 280.0 | 212.0 |
| Subject 2 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 326.0 | 382.0 | 330.0 | 306.0 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 248.0 | 267.0 | 232.0 | 220.0 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 101.0 | 309.0 | 123.0 | 122.0 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 106.0 | 282.0 | 102.0 | 118.0 |
| Subject 3 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 147.0 | 257.0 | 236.0 | 159.0 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 156.0 | 287.0 | 259.0 | 231.0 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 167.0 | 221.0 | 197.0 | 114.0 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 163.0 | 250.0 | 159.0 | 160.0 |
| Subject 4 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 364.0 | 387.0 | 389.0 | 184.0 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 357.0 | 404.0 | 336.0 | 329.0 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 398.0 | 502.0 | 517.0 | 521.0 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 551.0 | 607.0 | 555.0 | 662.0 |
| Subject 5 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 344.0 | 377.0 | 367.0 | 281.0 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 367.0 | 414.0 | 352.0 | 341.0 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 498.0 | 522.0 | 489.0 | 481.0 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 592.0 | 618.0 | 594.0 | 582.0 |
| Subject 6 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 118.0 | 236.0 | 595.0 | 590.0 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 183.0 | 253.0 | 201.0 | 209.0 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 186.0 | 308.0 | 231.0 | 214.0 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 458.0 | 468.0 | 262.0 | 290.0 |
| Subject 7 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 903.0 | 912.0 | 827.0 | 567.0 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 765.0 | 893.0 | 679.0 | 466.0 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 826.0 | 994.0 | 963.0 | 821.0 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 1132.0 | 1136.0 | 1125.0 | 958.0 |
| Subject 8 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 304.0 | 430.0 | 1105.0 | 1008.0 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 512.0 | 607.0 | 780.0 | 705.0 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 821.0 | 870.0 | 1063.0 | 952.0 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 1121.0 | 1231.0 | 1184.0 | 1071.0 |
Fig. 3mfERG recording of the same AMD subject before treatment (A) and one year after treatment (B). Note the improvements in mfERG recordings especially in the central rings shown with the color maps and 3D visualization maps. mfERG recordings of the fellow eye showed worsening in the central areas (C, D).
Fig. 4mfERG recording of the same SMD subject before treatment (A) and one year after treatment (B). Note the improvements in mfERG recordings especially in the central rings shown with the color maps and 3D visualization maps. mfERG recordings of the fellow eye showed worsening in the central areas (C, D).
Implicit times of mfERG tests of the patients before and 1-year after treatment mfERG= multifocal electroretinography
| mfERG parameters implicit time P1 (ms) | Baseline study eye | 1 Year study eye | Baseline fellow eye | 1 Year fellow eye |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject 1 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 53.5 | 51.5 | 53.2 | 52.7 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 54.2 | 52.1 | 53.6 | 52.9 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 51.6 | 53.5 | 56.4 | 56.3 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 55.0 | 55.3 | 56.3 | 58.0 |
| Subject 2 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 50.5 | 49.3 | 44.4 | 45.1 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 55.7 | 48.2 | 49.4 | 56.2 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 58.3 | 51.7 | 54.6 | 58.0 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 59.9 | 59.6 | 51.6 | 57.0 |
| Subject 3 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 47.7 | 44.1 | 47.8 | 45.6 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 46.8 | 48.8 | 51.6 | 47.6 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 47.4 | 51.2 | 48.8 | 53.6 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 56.1 | 49.1 | 56.6 | 49.5 |
| Subject 4 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 46.4 | 45.7 | 47.4 | 46.4 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 44.3 | 43.7 | 46.0 | 46.2 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 43.6 | 43.8 | 44.8 | 44.1 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 45.5 | 44.7 | 45.6 | 46.3 |
| Subject 5 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 47.7 | 49.8 | 48.2 | 46.9 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 49.6 | 47.1 | 46.2 | 45.3 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 47.8 | 46.8 | 47.2 | 45.9 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 46.8 | 46.1 | 46.9 | 46.9 |
| Subject 6 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 47.0 | 53.3 | 53.5 | 53.3 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 50.9 | 47.1 | 50.9 | 49.1 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 48.0 | 48.2 | 46.1 | 48.2 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 47.1 | 49.0 | 47.1 | 47.8 |
| Subject 7 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 51.4 | 52.9 | 50.9 | 54.5 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 49.0 | 49.1 | 47.8 | 53.6 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 47.7 | 47.6 | 46.9 | 50.5 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 46.8 | 46.7 | 45.1 | 49.2 |
| Subject 8 | ||||
| Ring 1 (<2°) | 45.4 | 43.8 | 48.8 | 46.1 |
| Ring 2 (2∼5°) | 43.2 | 42.7 | 45.0 | 44.2 |
| Ring 3 (5∼10°) | 43.6 | 43.0 | 43.9 | 43.1 |
| Ring 4 (10∼15°) | 43.5 | 43.1 | 43.6 | 43.3 |
OCT measurements of the treated and the fellow eyes (values in μm)
| Subject No. | Baseline of the study eye | 1 Year study eye | Baseline fellow eye | 1 Year fellow eye | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CMT | 81 | 78 | ||
| CCT | 235 | 257 | |||
| 2 | CMT | 100 | 83 | ||
| CCT | 266 | 237 | |||
| 3 | CMT | 163 | 171 | ||
| CCT | 203 | 199 | |||
| 4 | CMT | 74 | 70 | ||
| CCT | 286 | 290 | |||
| 5 | CMT | 131 | 137 | ||
| CCT | 195 | 242 | |||
| 6 | CMT | 20 | 19 | ||
| CCT | 128 | 122 | |||
| 7 | CMT | 23 | 27 | ||
| CCT | 190 | 183 | |||
| 8 | CMT | 104 | 98 | ||
| CCT | 330 | 219 |
CMT: Central macular thickness; CCT: Central choroidal thickness.
The numbers written in italics belong to the patients who experienced decrease during the follow-up period. The numbers written in bold represent the patients who had increase in CCT.