Effect of Amniotic Membrane on Epithelial Thickness and Formation of Hemidesmosomes after Corneal Stromal Wound

Yong Jun Yun; Joo Young Kwag; Si Hwan Choi

doi:10.3341/jkos.2011.52.5.589

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.52(5) > 1009039

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Yun, Kwag, and Choi: Effect of Amniotic Membrane on Epithelial Thickness and Formation of Hemidesmosomes after Corneal Stromal Wound

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2011;52(5):589-596.

Published online: 3 August 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.5.589

Effect of Amniotic Membrane on Epithelial Thickness and Formation of Hemidesmosomes after Corneal Stromal Wound

Yong Jun Yun, MD, Joo Young Kwag, MD, Si Hwan Choi, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

Address reprint requests to Si Hwan Choi, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Chungnam National University Hospital #640 Daesa-dong, Jung-gu, Daejeon 301-747, Korea Tel: 82-42-280-7609, Fax: 82-42-255-3745, E-mail: shchoi@cnu.ac.kr

Received 24 August 20096 December 2010 Accepted 8 March 2011

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the effects of an amniotic membrane patch on corneal epithelial thickness and formation of hemidesmosomes during corneal stromal wound healing.

Methods

A stromal wound 9 mm in diameter and 130 μm in depth was created on rabbit cornea using a microkeratome. The changes in corneal epithelial thickness and hemidesmosome formations were compared between the amniotic membrane, contact lens, and control groups. Changes in the corneal epithelium were examined using H&E staining and hemidesmosome formation was examined using an electron microscope at 2 and 4 weeks after flap removal.

Results

Two weeks after treatment, the corneal epithelial thickness was 95.3 ± 6.3 μm in the amniotic membrane group being significantly thicker than 76.4 ± 5.1 μm in the contact lens group and 68.3 ± 6.1 μm in the control group. Furthermore, more hemidesmosome formations were observed in the amniotic membrane group compared to the other 2 groups. However, there were no significant differences in corneal epithelial thickness or hemidesmosome formation among the 3 groups at week 4.

Conclusions

The amniotic membrane group showed a thicker corneal epithelium and more hemidesmosome formation than the other 2 groups 2 weeks after flap removal. Thus, the use of an amniotic membrane patch appears to be effective in the early stages of corneal stromal wound healing.

Go to :

Keywords: Amniotic membrane, Contact lens, Corneal epithelial thickness, Hemidesmosome

References

1. Davis JW. Skin transplantation with a review of 550 cases at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Johns Hopkins Med J. 1910; 15:307.

2. Kim JC, Tseng SC. Transplantation of preserved human amniotic membrane for surface reconstruction in severely damaged rabbit corneas. Cornea. 1995; 14:473–84.

3. Meller D, Pires RT, Mack RJ, et al. Amniotic membrane transplantation for acute chemical or thermal burns. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:980–9.

4. Kruse FE, Rohrschneider K, Völcker HE. Multilayer amniotic membrane transplantation for reconstruction of deep corneal ulcers. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106:1504–10.

5. Chen HJ, Pires RT, Tseng SC. Amniotic membrane transplantation for severe neurotrophic corneal ulcers. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000; 84:826–33.

6. Kim JS, Kim JC, Hahn TW, Park WC. Amniotic membrane transplantation in infectious corneal ulcer. Cornea. 2001; 20:720–6.

7. Solomon A, Pires RT, Tseng SC. Amniotic membrane transplantation after extensive removal of primary and recurrent pterygia. Ophthalmology. 2001; 108:449–60.

8. Hanada K, Shimazaki J, Shimmura S, Tsubota K. Multilayered amniotic membrane transplantation for severe ulceration of the cornea and sclera. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001; 131:324–31.

9. van Herendael BJ, Oberti C, Brosens I. Microanatomy of the human amniotic membranes. A light microscopic, transmission, and scanning electron microscopic study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978; 131:872–80.

10. Dua HS, Azuara-Blanco A. Amniotic membrane transplantation. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999; 83:748–52.

11. Kim JC, Tseng SC. The effects on inhibition of corneal neo-vascularization after human amniotic membrane transplantation in severely damaged rabbit corneas. Korean J Ophthalmol. 1995; 9:32–46.

12. Kim SY. Korea External Rye Disease Society. Cornea. 2nd ed.Seoul: Ilchokak;2005. p. 2–3.

13. Kim YH, Lee DH, Lew HM. The comparison of the corneal epithelial healing according to treatment modalities in rabbit. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999; 40:2683–92.

14. Kang KM, Wee WR. The use if ascorbic acid after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy in rabbits. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 37:1620–5.

15. Sohn JH, Choi SK, Lee JH. The effect of disposable bandage contact lenses on time and velocity of corneal epithelial healing after myopic epikeratoplasty. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1995; 36:1422–8.

16. Fernandes M, Sridhar MS, Sangwan VS, Rao GN. Amniotic membrane transplantation for ocular surface reconstruction. Cornea. 2005; 24:643–53.

17. Li H, Niederkorn JY, Neelam S, et al. Immunosuppressive factors secreted by human amniotic epithelial cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:900–7.

18. Cooper LJ, Kinoshita S, German M, et al. An investigation into the composition of amniotic membrane used for ocular surface reconstruction. Cornea. 2005; 24:722–9.

19. Gomes JA, Romano A, Santos MS, Dua HS. Amniotic membrane use in ophthalmology. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005; 16:233–40.

20. Wilson SE, He YG, Weng J, et al. Epithelial injury induces keratocyte apoptosis: hypothesized role for the interleukin-1 system in the modulation of corneal tissue organization and wound healing. Exp Eye Res. 1996; 62:325–7.

21. Tseng SC, Li DQ, Ma X. Suppression of transforming growth factor-beta isoforms, TGF-beta receptor type II, and myofibroblast differentiation in cultured human corneal and limbal fibroblasts by amniotic membrane matrix. J Cell Physiol. 1999; 179:325–35.

22. Kim JC. A Practical Guide to Ocular Surface Disorders. 1st ed.Seoul: Naeweh Haksool;2006. p. 20–3.

23. Woo HM, Kim HS, Kweon OK, et al. Effects of amniotic membrane on epithelial wound healing and stromal remodeling after excimer laser keratectomy in rabbit cornea. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001; 85:345–9.

24. Yoshita T, Kobayashi A, Sugiyama K, Tseng SC. Oxygen permeability of amniotic membrane and actual tear oxygen tension beneath amniotic membrane patch. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004; 138:486–7.

25. Zagon IS, Sassani JW, Ruth TB, McLaughlin PJ. Epithelial adhesion complexes and organ culture of the human cornea. Brain Res. 2001; 900:205–13.

26. Xu YG, Choi SH, Ko SM, et al. Morphology and adhesion complex of cultured epithelium, on amniotic membrane in vitro and in vivo. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:160–70.

Go to :

Figure 1.

Photographs showing the making and removal of the corneal wound (diameter 9 mm, depth 130 μm). (A) Creating the corneal wound flap with Microkeratome (BDK3000, Becton & Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). (B) Corneal flap. (C) Lifting of the corneal wound flap and cutting the hinge of the corneal flap using a blade. (D) Fluorescein dye staining after corneal flap removal.

undefined

Figure 2.

Photograph of the rabbit cornea after amniotic membrane patch graft. Arrowheads indicate the original amniotic membrane patch margin (diameter 14 mm) and arrows indicate 10-0 nylon sutures.

undefined

Figure 3.

Light microscopy of the central cornea at 2 weeks. (A) Normal cornea. (B) Amniotic membrane group. (C) Contact lens group. (D) Control group. Corneal epithelial thickness in the amniotic membrane group is thicker than the other groups (Hematoxylin-Eosin stain, original magnification ×100).

undefined

Figure 4.

Light microscopy of central cornea at 4 weeks. (A) Normal cornea. (B) Amniotic membrane group. (C) Contact lens group. (D) Control group. Corneal epithelial thickness is similar in all groups (Hematoxylin-Eosin stain, original magnification ×100).

undefined

Figure 5.

Comparison of central corneal epithelial thickness among the 3 groups at 2 weeks and 4 weeks. In all groups, the central corneal epithelial thickness was significantly thicker at 2 weeks than at 4 weeks. ^* Corneal epithelial thickness in the AM group is significantly thicker than the CL and control group at 2 weeks. ^† Corneal epithelial thickness in the CL group is significantly thicker than the control group. AM = amniotic membrane; CL = contact lens.

undefined

Figure 6.

Transmission electron photomicrographs (original magnification ×45,000) of the central cornea at 2 weeks. (A) Morphologically established hemidesmosome is found in the amniotic membrane group. (B) Morphologically identifiable hemidesmosomes appear in the contact lens group. (C) Hyperactive formation of adhesion complex in the control group.

undefined

Figure 7.

Transmission electron photomicrographs (original magnification ×45,000) of the central cornea at 4 weeks. (A) Amniotic membrane group. (B) Contact lens group. (C) Control group. Morphologically established hemidesmosomes (arrowheads) are detected in all groups. There are no significant differences in adhesion complex formation among the 3 groups.

undefined

Table 1.

The comparison of corneal epithelial thickness among the 3 groups 2 mm from the limbus (Corneal flap did not involve this area)

Groups	n	Epithelial thickness (mean ± SD, μm)	p-value^*
Control group	9	51.4 ± 4.3
AM group^†	9	50.3 ± 3.3	0.73
CL group^‡	8	52.6 ± 3.3

^* Kruskal-Wallis test;

^† AM = amniotic membrane;

^‡ CL = contact lens.

Table 2.

The comparison of the central corneal epithelial thickness among the 3 groups

Time	Control group (mean ± SD, n = 8)	AM group^*(mean ± SD, n = 9)	CL group^†(mean ± SD, n = 9)	p-value^‡
2 weeks	68.3 ± 6.1	95.3 ± 6.3	76.4 ± 5.1	0.012
4 weeks	51.4 ± 4.7	50.0 ± 6.5	51.8 ± 3.9	0.612

^* AM = amniotic membrane;

^† CL = contact lens;

^‡ Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 3.

The comparison of hemidesmosome numbers in the central cornea among the 3 groups at 2 weeks

Groups	n	Hemidesmosomes (number/100 μm, mean ± SD)	p-value^*
Control group	9	0.80 ± 0.2
AM group^†	9	1.95 ± 0.3	0.002
CL group^‡	8	1.45 ± 0.2

^* Kruskal-Wallis test;

^† AM = amniotic membrane;

^‡ CL = contact lens.

TOOLS

Similar articles