Abstract
The purpose of this study was to characterize the morphological and immunological aspects of biointegration at the optic-cornea joint of a second-generation synthetic corneal device.PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to characterize the morphological and immunological aspects of biointegration at the optic-cornea joint of a second-generation synthetic corneal device.The initial prototype, single-piece optic-skirt configuration, is constructed from compact and flexible perfluoroalkoxy alkane with porous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) overlying the skirt to allow skirt-cornea biointegration. The second-generation version was modified to add ePTFE around the optic wall to allow optic-cornea biointegration. Initial and amended second-generation devices were implanted into healthy rabbit eyes. Clinical examination, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, light microscopy, and immunofluorescence studies were performed to assess structural integrity and determine molecular signatures indicative of inflammation and tissue remodeling between the 2 prototypes.METHODSThe initial prototype, single-piece optic-skirt configuration, is constructed from compact and flexible perfluoroalkoxy alkane with porous expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) overlying the skirt to allow skirt-cornea biointegration. The second-generation version was modified to add ePTFE around the optic wall to allow optic-cornea biointegration. Initial and amended second-generation devices were implanted into healthy rabbit eyes. Clinical examination, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, light microscopy, and immunofluorescence studies were performed to assess structural integrity and determine molecular signatures indicative of inflammation and tissue remodeling between the 2 prototypes.Recipient eyes with both device versions showed no epithelial defects or tissue retraction at 3 months postoperatively. Optical coherence tomography images demonstrated no appreciable perioptic space with either prototype. Histopathology of the initial device demonstrated lack of stromal adhesion at the optic-cornea joint with epithelium filling the perioptic space. Second-generation devices demonstrated full sealing of the recipient stroma along the optic stem. Although the routine histopathology did not demonstrate inflammatory cells in the recipient cornea with either device, immunohistochemistry stains demonstrated quiescent phenotype of stromal and epithelial cells only in the second-generation devices.RESULTSRecipient eyes with both device versions showed no epithelial defects or tissue retraction at 3 months postoperatively. Optical coherence tomography images demonstrated no appreciable perioptic space with either prototype. Histopathology of the initial device demonstrated lack of stromal adhesion at the optic-cornea joint with epithelium filling the perioptic space. Second-generation devices demonstrated full sealing of the recipient stroma along the optic stem. Although the routine histopathology did not demonstrate inflammatory cells in the recipient cornea with either device, immunohistochemistry stains demonstrated quiescent phenotype of stromal and epithelial cells only in the second-generation devices.Biointegration between the synthetic corneal device and recipient tissue at the optic-cornea joint seems to avert inflammation and may help prevent sterile tissue lysis and prolong retention.CONCLUSIONSBiointegration between the synthetic corneal device and recipient tissue at the optic-cornea joint seems to avert inflammation and may help prevent sterile tissue lysis and prolong retention.