Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024
Comparative study on corneal epithelium healing: effects of crosslinked hyaluronic acid and amniotic membrane extract eye drops in rats.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gonçalves E Souza Lenara, Vilardo Lóes Moreira Matheus, Sayuri Saçaki Claudia, Perlmann Eduardo, Guimarães Lopes Thacyana Beatriz, Ferreira Enio, Moreno Juan Carlos Duque, Montiani-Ferreira Fabiano
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Corneal ulcers are common lesions in both human and veterinary medicine. However, only a few studies have evaluated the efficacy of cross-linked hyaluronic acid (X-HA) eye drops on corneal wound healing. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate and compare the efficacy of amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED) and X-HA for corneal wound healing in rats.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 15 male Wistar rats (30 eyes) were used in this study. Then, 10 eyes were treated with X-HA, AMEED, or 0.9% saline. After general and topical anesthesia, a superficial corneal ulcer was created using a corneal trephine. The defect was further polished with a diamond burr. Three groups of 10 eyes each were treated with either one drop of 0.75% X-HA or AMEED or 0.9% saline (control), administered every 12 h for a duration of 72 h. The median epithelial defect area (MEDA), expressed as a percentage of the total corneal surface, was measured at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h. Re-epithelization time scores were also evaluated. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare median times for re-epithelization and histopathologic scores between groups, while the Friedman test (for paired data) was employed to compare results from the serial analysis of MEDA and vascularization scores between groups.
RESULTS: MEDA was not significantly different between X-HA and AMEED. However, MEDA was significantly smaller in the X-HA group compared to the control group at 36 h (2.73 interquartile range (IQR) 5.52% x 9.95 IQR 9.10%, P=0.024) and 48 h (0.00 IQR 0.26% x 6.30 IQR 8.54%, P=0.030). The overall time for re-epithelization was significantly lower in the X-HA group (3.00 IQR 3.00) compared to the AMEED (6.5 IQR 3.00) and control (7.00 IQR 1.00) groups (P=0.035). Vascularization, hydropic degeneration, and epithelial-stromal separation were significantly less observed in samples in the X-HA-treated compared to samples in the AMEED- and saline-treated groups. Significantly more corneal epithelium cells were labeled for caspase3 in samples from the AMEED- and saline-treated groups compared to those from the X-HA-treated group.
DISCUSSION: Topical X-HA has been shown to accelerate corneal epithelial healing. AMEED did not decrease corneal re-epithelialization time. X-HA may also potentially be used as an adjunct therapy for treating corneal ulcers in clinical situations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 15 male Wistar rats (30 eyes) were used in this study. Then, 10 eyes were treated with X-HA, AMEED, or 0.9% saline. After general and topical anesthesia, a superficial corneal ulcer was created using a corneal trephine. The defect was further polished with a diamond burr. Three groups of 10 eyes each were treated with either one drop of 0.75% X-HA or AMEED or 0.9% saline (control), administered every 12 h for a duration of 72 h. The median epithelial defect area (MEDA), expressed as a percentage of the total corneal surface, was measured at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h. Re-epithelization time scores were also evaluated. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare median times for re-epithelization and histopathologic scores between groups, while the Friedman test (for paired data) was employed to compare results from the serial analysis of MEDA and vascularization scores between groups.
RESULTS: MEDA was not significantly different between X-HA and AMEED. However, MEDA was significantly smaller in the X-HA group compared to the control group at 36 h (2.73 interquartile range (IQR) 5.52% x 9.95 IQR 9.10%, P=0.024) and 48 h (0.00 IQR 0.26% x 6.30 IQR 8.54%, P=0.030). The overall time for re-epithelization was significantly lower in the X-HA group (3.00 IQR 3.00) compared to the AMEED (6.5 IQR 3.00) and control (7.00 IQR 1.00) groups (P=0.035). Vascularization, hydropic degeneration, and epithelial-stromal separation were significantly less observed in samples in the X-HA-treated compared to samples in the AMEED- and saline-treated groups. Significantly more corneal epithelium cells were labeled for caspase3 in samples from the AMEED- and saline-treated groups compared to those from the X-HA-treated group.
DISCUSSION: Topical X-HA has been shown to accelerate corneal epithelial healing. AMEED did not decrease corneal re-epithelialization time. X-HA may also potentially be used as an adjunct therapy for treating corneal ulcers in clinical situations.