You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Download PDF
  • Editorial
  • Open Access

29 July 2022

Corneal Disease & Transplantation

and
1
Department of Clinical Science and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy
2
St. Paul’s Eye Unit, Department of Corneal Diseases, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool L7 8XP, UK
3
Department of Eye and Vision Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L7 8TX, UK
4
Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, Eye Clinic, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy
J. Clin. Med.2022, 11(15), 4432;https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154432
This article belongs to the Special Issue Corneal Disease & Transplantation
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Corneal diseases represent the third leading cause of blindness worldwide, and corneal transplantation, which aims at restoring corneal clarity and vision, is the most frequently performed transplant worldwide. Different corneal transplantation techniques have developed over the years, from full-thickness to lamellar grafts.
One of the most important aspects of a successful corneal transplantation is effective corneal suturing, which should not only prevent complications such as wound leak, excessive scarring and infections, but also achieve a good postoperative refractive outcome [1]. Knowledge of basic mechanisms of wound healing can help in understanding the process of corneal barrier restoration [2]. Careful instrument selection might help reduce tissue stress during suture apposition [1]. Appropriate suture length and depth can reduce corneal inflammatory reaction, reduce the risk of infection, provide optimal tissue apposition and reduce postoperative astigmatism [1,3,4]. In addition, the type of suture placement can result in different patterns of tension within a three-dimensional field with different effects on corneal astigmatism [5]. Suture-related complications and their postoperative management should be known in depth, as well as specific differences that apply to pediatric patients [6,7,8,9].
Over the past few years, customized graft profiles have developed thanks to the introduction of the femtosecond laser-assisted keratoplasty, and these can help with increasing the donor–recipient apposition area with possible enhancement of wound stability and reduction of dehiscence rate [10,11].
After corneal transplantation, a visually significant complication that can occur even years after initial surgery is the post-penetrating keratoplasty corneal ectasia [12]. Gradual corneal protrusion with thinning and steepening, which determines increased irregular astigmatism, myopic shift and corneal aberrations, determines progressive visual loss [13]. Frequency, risk factors, mechanisms, diagnostic strategies, preventive measures and management can vary according to specific situations, and a comprehensive evaluation of all these features can help in deciding the best treatment option for this condition [12].
With regard to corneal diseases, keratoconus is the most common primary corneal ectasia [14]. Corneal Collagen Crosslinking (CXL) can increase corneal stiffness and, to date, is the only non-surgical treatment aimed to slow down keratoconus progression [15], and there are open questions about the definition of its progression and corneal biomechanics evaluation [16,17,18]. Long term follow-up after CXL is essential to establish its role over years in reducing keratoconus progression and eventually improving corneal astigmatism, aberrations and vision, especially if associated to transepithelial ablation [19,20].
Finally, the availability of donor tissues is limited worldwide, either because of a shortage of donors [21] or due to the inability to adequately preserve tissues in some regions. Studies aimed at evaluating more feasible ways to preserve available tissues can help by addressing the second point [22,23,24,25]. Human amniotic membrane (hAM) has vast applications in ophthalmology, and cryopreservation is the most commonly used method for its storage [26,27]. However, this requires facilities with −80 °C freezers, which are expensive both to buy and to maintain, thus limiting the use of the theoretically cost-effective hAM in developing countries. Therefore, ways to overcome this issue while maintaining appropriate biological and mechanical properties of the tissue must be explored [26].
In this issue, we aimed to highlight various aspects of corneal transplantation, corneal diseases and tissue preservation, and we hope it will be appreciated by readers.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pagano, L.; Shah, H.; Al Ibrahim, O.; Gadhvi, K.A.; Coco, G.; Lee, J.W. Update on Suture Techniques in Corneal Transplantation: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ljubimov, A.V.; Saghizadeh, M. Progress in corneal wound healing. Prog. Retin. Eye Res. 2015, 49, 17–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Melles, G.R.J.; Binder, P.S. A comparison of wound healing in sutured and unsutured corneal wounds. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1990, 108, 1460–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Assil, K.K.; Zarnegar, S.R.; Schanzlin, D.J. Visual outcome after penetrating keratoplasty with double continuous or combined interrupted and continuous suture wound closure. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1992, 114, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Frost, N.A.; Wu, J.; Lai, T.F.; Coster, D.J. A review of randomized controlled trials of penetrating keratoplasty techniques. Ophthalmology 2006, 113, 942–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Christo, C.G.; Van Rooij, J.; Geerards, A.J.M.; Remeijer, L.; Beekhuis, W.H. Suture-related complications following keratoplasty: A 5-year retrospective study. Cornea 2001, 20, 816–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chan, A.S.; Colby, K. Update on pediatric keratoplasty. Int. Ophthalmol. Clin. 2008, 48, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Reidy, J.J. Penetrating keratoplasty in infancy and early childhood. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2001, 12, 258–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bar-Sela, S.M.; Spierer, O.; Spierer, A. Suture-related complications after congenital cataract surgery: Vicryl versus Mersilene sutures. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2007, 33, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alio, J.L.; Abdelghany, A.A.; Barraquer, R.; Hammouda, L.M.; Sabry, A.M. Femtosecond Laser Assisted Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty Outcomes and Healing Patterns Compared to Manual Technique. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 397891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Gadhvi, K.A.; Romano, V.; Fernández-Vega Cueto, L.; Aiello, F.; Day, A.C.; Gore, D.M. Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty for Keratoconus: Multi-surgeon Results. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 220, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Moramarco, A.; Gardini, L.; Iannetta, D.; Versura, P.; Fontana, L. Post Penetrating Keratoplasty Ectasia: Incidence, Risk Factors, Clinical Features, and Treatment Options. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Garcia-Ferrer, F.J.; Akpek, E.K.; Amescua, G.; Farid, M.; Lin, A.; Rhee, M.K. Corneal Ectasia Preferred Practice Pattern®. Ophthalmology 2019, 126, P170–P215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Ferdi, A.C.; Nguyen, V.; Gore, D.M.; Allan, B.D.; Rozema, J.J.; Watson, S.L. Keratoconus Natural Progression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 11 529 Eyes. Ophthalmology 2019, 126, 935–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wollensak, G.; Spoerl, E.; Seiler, T. Riboflavin/ultraviolet-a-induced collagen crosslinking for the treatment of keratoconus. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2003, 135, 620–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vinciguerra, R.; Tzamalis, A.; Romano, V.; Arbabi, E.M.; Batterbury, M.; Kaye, S.B. Assessment of the Association Between In Vivo Corneal Biomechanical Changes After Corneal Cross-linking and Depth of Demarcation Line. J. Refract. Surg. 2019, 35, 202–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Brunner, M.; Czanner, G.; Vinciguerra, R.; Romano, V.; Ahmad, S.; Batterbury, M. Improving precision for detecting change in the shape of the cornea in patients with keratoconus. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 12345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Lanza, M.; Cennamo, M.; Iaccarino, S.; Romano, V.; Bifani, M.; Irregolare, C. Evaluation of corneal deformation analyzed with a Scheimpflug based device. Cont. Lens. Anterior. Eye 2015, 38, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eslami, M.; Ghaseminejad, F.; Dubord, P.J.; Yeung, S.N.; Iovieno, A. Delayed Topographical and Refractive Changes Following Corneal Cross-Linking for Keratoconus. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rechichi, M.; Mazzotta, C.; Oliverio, G.W.; Romano, V.; Borroni, D.; Ferrise, M. Selective transepithelial ablation with simultaneous accelerated corneal crosslinking for corneal regularization of keratoconus: STARE-X protocol. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2021, 47, 1403–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gadhvi, K.A.; Coco, G.; Pagano, L.; Kaye, S.B.; Ferrari, S.; Levis, H.J. Eye Banking: One Cornea for Multiple Recipients. Cornea 2020, 39, 1599–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Romano, V.; Levis, H.J.; Gallon, P.; Lace, R.; Borroni, D.; Ponzin, D. Biobanking of Dehydrated Human Donor Corneal Stroma to Increase the Supply of Anterior Lamellar Grafts. Cornea 2019, 38, 480–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Parekh, M.; Romano, V.; Ruzza, A.; Kaye, S.B.; Ponzin, D.; Ahmad, S. Culturing Discarded Peripheral Human Corneal Endothelial Cells From the Tissues Deemed for Preloaded DMEK Transplants. Cornea 2019, 38, 1175–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Parekh, M.; Romano, V.; Ruzza, A.; Kaye, S.B.; Ponzin, D.; Ahmad, S. Increasing Donor Endothelial Cell Pool by Culturing Cells from Discarded Pieces of Human Donor Corneas for Regenerative Treatments. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 2019, 2525384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Parekh, M.; Ferrari, S.; Romano, V. Long-term preservation of human donor corneal tissues in organ culture. Cell Tissue Bank 2021, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Witt, J.; Grumm, L.; Salla, S.; Geerling, G.; Menzel-Severing, J. Cryopreservation in a Standard Freezer: −28 °C as Alternative Storage Temperature for Amniotic Membrane Transplantation. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Malhotra, C.; Jain, A.K. Human amniotic membrane transplantation: Different modalities of its use in ophthalmology. World J. Transplant. 2014, 4, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Time to Surgery Does Not Affect Overall or Disease-Free Survival of Patients with Primary Resectable PDAC
Previous
Assessment of Anxiety, Depression, Work-Related Stress, and Burnout in Health Care Workers (HCWs) Affected by COVID-19: Results of a Case–Control Study in Italy
Next