Epithelial transplantation for the management of severe ocular surface disease.

Abstract

PURPOSE: First, to present a new classification of epithelial transplantation procedures for ocular surface disease; second, to present our experience with a keratolimbal allograft procedure for limbal stem cell deficiency; and third, to make recommendations for the indications and postoperative management of epithelial transplantation procedures. METHODS: A review of all epithelial transplantation procedures was performed. A classification of these procedures based on the source of donor tissue and the tissue transplanted was proposed. In addition, a review of 25 eyes of 21 patients who underwent a keratolimbal allograft was completed. Ocular surface stability, improvement of visual acuity, success of subsequent keratoplasties, and preoperative risk factors were evaluated. Results were compared with those of other epithelial transplantation procedures for ocular surface disease. On the basis of the results of published studies, as well as ours, a recommendation for the indication of the various procedures was made. RESULTS: Epithelial transplantation for ocular surface disease can be classified as one of the following procedures: conjunctival autograft (CAU), conjunctival allograft (CAL), conjunctival limbal autograft (CLAU), cadaveric conjunctival limbal allograft (c-CLAL), living related conjunctival limbal allograft (lr-CLAL), or keratolimbal allograft (KLAL). Evaluation of our keratolimbal allograft patients revealed that 18 of 25 eyes (72%) developed a stable ocular surface. Fifteen eyes (60%) demonstrated a significant improvement in visual acuity. Persistent epithelial defects and symblephara were successfully managed with this procedure. Six of 13 (46%) subsequent keratoplasties were successful. Patients with limbal deficiency due to Stevens-Johnson syndrome had a significantly worse outcome. Patients with preoperative conjunctival keratinization also had a significantly worse outcome. Indications for epithelial transplantation are as follows: For patients with unilateral cicatrizing conjunctival disease, the first option should be CAU. For patients with unilateral limbal deficiency, CLAU is the procedure of choice. For patients with bilateral disease Ir-CLAL should be considered first. If this procedure is not available, then consideration of KLAL is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: Classification of the various epithelial transplantation procedures based on anatomy is useful for an accurate comparison and discussion of the procedures. KLAL is a useful technique in the management of severe ocular surface disease due to limbal deficiency. However, patients with preoperative conjunctival keratinization have a poor prognosis. Consideration of a CLAU or a Ir-CLAL should be made for ocular surface disease on the basis of whether the disease is unilateral or bilateral. The importance of HLA and ABO typing, as well as the protocol for immunosuppression in the allograft procedures for limbal deficiency, needs further study.

Full text

PDF

• Previous
• 677
• …
• 739
• 740
• 741
• 742
• 743
• Next

Images in this article

FIGURE 2
on p.696

FIGURE 3A
on p.697

FIGURE 3B
on p.698

FIGURE 3C
on p.698

FIGURE 3D
on p.699

FIGURE 4
on p.700

FIGURE 5A
on p.706

FIGURE 5B
on p.707

FIGURE 5C
on p.707

FIGURE 5D
on p.708

FIGURE 6A
on p.708

FIGURE 6B
on p.709

FIGURE 6C
on p.709

FIGURE 6D
on p.710

FIGURE 6E
on p.710

FIGURE 6F
on p.711

FIGURE 6G
on p.711

FIGURE 6H
on p.712

FIGURE 7A
on p.713

FIGURE 7B
on p.714

FIGURE 7C
on p.714

FIGURE 8
on p.715

FIGURE 9A
on p.715

FIGURE 9B
on p.716

FIGURE 9C
on p.716

FIGURE 9D
on p.717

FIGURE 9E
on p.717

FIGURE 9F
on p.718

FIGURE 10A
on p.719

FIGURE 10B
on p.719

FIGURE 10C
on p.720

FIGURE 11
on p.721

FIGURE 12A
on p.722

FIGURE 12B
on p.722

FIGURE 12C
on p.723

FIGURE 12D
on p.723

FIGURE 12E
on p.724

FIGURE 12F
on p.724

FIGURE 12G
on p.725

FIGURE 12H
on p.725

FIGURE 12I
on p.726

FIGURE 13A
on p.727

FIGURE 13B
on p.728

FIGURE 13C
on p.728

FIGURE 14
on p.731

FIGURE 15
on p.731