Zobrazit v EDS

Allogenic Cultured Limbal Epithelial Transplantation and Cultivated Oral Mucosal Epithelial Transplantation in Limbal Stem Cells Deficiency: A Comparative Study.

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Název: Allogenic Cultured Limbal Epithelial Transplantation and Cultivated Oral Mucosal Epithelial Transplantation in Limbal Stem Cells Deficiency: A Comparative Study.
Autoři: Elalfy, Mohamed, Elsawah, Kareem, Maqsood, Sundas, Jordan, Nigel, Hassan, Mansour, Zaki, Ahmed, Gatzioufas, Zisis, Hamada, Samer, Lake, Damian
Zdroj: Ophthalmology & Therapy; Feb2025, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p413-432, 20p
Témata: LIMBAL stem cell deficiency, STEM cell transplantation, BRITISH kings & rulers, GRAFT rejection, INTRAOCULAR pressure
Abstrakt: Introduction: This study compared the clinical outcomes of allogenic cultured limbal epithelial transplantation (ACLET) and cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET) in the management of limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD). Methods: Forty-one COMET procedures in 40 eyes and 69 ACLET procedures in 54 eyes were performed in the Corneoplastic Unit of Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead. Data were examined for demographics, indications, ocular surface stability, absence of epithelial defect, ocular surface inflammation, visual outcomes, and intra- and postoperative complications. Results: Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that patients in the ACLET group with longer follow-up had a significantly higher graft survival rate (81.7%, n = 56) than the COMET group (60.7%, n = 25) and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.01). In the COMET group, there was no statistically significant improvement in the visual acuity (VA) while in the ACLET group there was statistically significant improvement in the final VA. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) developed in 9 eyes (22.0%) in the COMET group and in 18 eyes (26.1%) in the ACLET group; infection developed in 4 eyes (9.8%) in the COMET group and in 10 eyes (14.5%) in the ACLET group; and perforation or melting happened in 4 eyes (9.8%) in the COMET group and in 1 eye (1.4%) in the ACLET group. Postoperative immunosuppression complications were noted in 9 eyes (13.0%) in the ACLET group. No graft rejection was observed in either group. Conclusion: Both ACLET and COMET are effective therapeutic procedures for managing advanced and bilateral cases of LSCD. Although COMET has lower graft survival rate than ACLET, it does not mandate systemic immunosuppression therapy to protect against potential graft rejection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Ophthalmology & Therapy is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Databáze: Complementary Index
Popis
Abstrakt:Introduction: This study compared the clinical outcomes of allogenic cultured limbal epithelial transplantation (ACLET) and cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET) in the management of limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD). Methods: Forty-one COMET procedures in 40 eyes and 69 ACLET procedures in 54 eyes were performed in the Corneoplastic Unit of Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead. Data were examined for demographics, indications, ocular surface stability, absence of epithelial defect, ocular surface inflammation, visual outcomes, and intra- and postoperative complications. Results: Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that patients in the ACLET group with longer follow-up had a significantly higher graft survival rate (81.7%, n = 56) than the COMET group (60.7%, n = 25) and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.01). In the COMET group, there was no statistically significant improvement in the visual acuity (VA) while in the ACLET group there was statistically significant improvement in the final VA. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) developed in 9 eyes (22.0%) in the COMET group and in 18 eyes (26.1%) in the ACLET group; infection developed in 4 eyes (9.8%) in the COMET group and in 10 eyes (14.5%) in the ACLET group; and perforation or melting happened in 4 eyes (9.8%) in the COMET group and in 1 eye (1.4%) in the ACLET group. Postoperative immunosuppression complications were noted in 9 eyes (13.0%) in the ACLET group. No graft rejection was observed in either group. Conclusion: Both ACLET and COMET are effective therapeutic procedures for managing advanced and bilateral cases of LSCD. Although COMET has lower graft survival rate than ACLET, it does not mandate systemic immunosuppression therapy to protect against potential graft rejection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:21938245
DOI:10.1007/s40123-024-01083-x