Comparative Study of Conjunctival Limbal Transplantation Not Associated With the Use of Amniotic Membrane Transplantation for Treatment of Total Limbal Deficiency Secondary to Chemical Injury
Comparative Study of Conjunctival Limbal Transplantation Not Associated With the Use of Amniotic Membrane Transplantation for Treatment of Total Limbal Deficiency Secondary to Chemical Injury
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/ico.0000000000000139
复制
发表时间：
2014-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Gomes, Jose A. P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barreiro, Telma P.;Santos, Myrna S.;Gomes, Jose A. P.
目的：本研究的目的是比较结果的结膜角膜缘移植与不使用羊膜（AM）移植治疗角膜缘不足后，化学烧伤的eyes.Methods：这是一个回顾性的，比较性的，干预性的病例系列，包括34眼（34例）与总角膜缘不足后，化学烧伤，谁提交结膜角膜缘移植。角膜缘移植联合羊膜移植组（15眼）和单纯角膜缘移植组（19眼）。成功率和失败率，上皮化时间，视力进行了比较2 groups.Results：平均随访期为19.71 - 5.6个月，组1和18.26 +/- 7.78个月，组2。两组中自体结膜缘移植物和活体结膜缘移植物的比例相似（P = 0.914）。第1组角膜表面完全上皮化的时间显著延长（P = 0.007）。两组的移植物存活率相似（P = 0.581）。两组的失败率也相似（P = 0.232）。失败的最常见原因是第1组（20%的病例）的移植干细胞耗竭和第2组（10.5%）的排斥反应。术后视力提高者，第1组12眼（80%），第2组16眼（84.2%）（P = 0.430）。这两种技术被认为是令人满意的眼表重建的病人全角膜缘缺损后化学烧伤。
Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of conjunctival limbal transplantation with and without the use of amniotic membrane (AM) transplantation for the treatment of limbal deficiency after chemical burns to the eyes.Methods:This is a retrospective, comparative, interventional case series that included 34 eyes (34 patients) with total limbal deficiency after chemical burns, who were submitted to conjunctival limbal transplantation. Two groups were formed: group 1 (15 eyes) limbal transplantation associated with AM transplantation and group 2 (19 eyes) only limbal transplantation. Success and failure rates, epithelialization time, and visual acuity were compared between the 2 groups.Results:The mean follow-up period was 19.71 5.6 months in group 1 and 18.26 +/- 7.78 months in group 2. The proportion of conjunctival limbal autograft and living-related conjunctival limbal allograft was similar in both groups (P = 0.914). Time until complete epithelialization of the corneal surface was significantly longer in group 1 (P = 0.007). Graft survival was similar in both groups (P = 0.581). Failure rate was also similar in both groups (P = 0.232). The most common cause of failure was transplanted stem cell depletion in group 1 (20% of cases) and rejection in group 2 (10.5%). The visual acuity improved postoperatively in 12 eyes (80%) in group 1 and 16 (84.2%) in group 2 (P = 0.430).Conclusions:Results with the use of AM associated with conjunctival limbal transplantation in ocular surface reconstruction were similar to those obtained with limbal transplantation alone. Both techniques were found to be satisfactory for ocular surface reconstruction in patients with total limbal deficiency after chemical burns.