Abstract
Purpose:
To evaluate the effects of electron-beam (E-beam) irradiation on the human cornea and the potential for E-beam sterilization of Boston keratoprosthesis (BK) devices when pre-assembled with a donor cornea prior to sterilization.
Methods:
Human donor corneas and corneas pre-assembled in BK devices were immersed in recombinant human serum albumin (rHSA) media and E-beam irradiated at 25 kGy. Mechanical (tensile strength and modulus, and compression modulus), chemical, optical, structural, and degradation properties of the corneal tissue after irradiation and after 6 months of preservation were evaluated.
Results:
The mechanical evaluation showed that E-beam irradiation enhanced the tensile and compression moduli of human donor corneas, with no impact on their tensile strength. By chemical and mechanical analysis, E-beam irradiation caused a minor degree of crosslinking between collagen fibrils. No ultrastructural changes due to E-beam irradiation were observed. E-beam irradiation slightly increased the stability of the cornea against collagenase-induced degradation and had no impact on glucose diffusion. The optical evaluation showed transparency of the cornea was maintained. E-beam irradiated corneal tissues and BK-cornea pre-assembled devices were stable for 6 months after room-temperature preservation.
Conclusions:
E-beam irradiation generated no detrimental effects on the corneal tissues or BK-cornea pre-assembled devices and improved native properties of the corneal tissue, enabling prolonged preservation at room temperature. The pre-assembly of BK in a donor cornea, followed by E-beam irradiation, offers the potential for an off-the-shelf, ready to implant keratoprosthesis device.
Keywords: Electron beam irradiation, Sterilization, Human Cornea, Preservation, Biomechanical properties
Introduction
Corneal diseases are one of the primary causes of blindness affecting people of all ages1. Transplantation of a corneal allograft currently is the primary treatment for corneal blindness, including penetrating keratoplasty, deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty, and Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Nearly 50,000 corneal transplants were performed in the US in 2015, a 53% increase since 20052. While donor corneas are readily available in economically advantaged countries, there is a severe scarcity of donor corneas globally3. Tissue suitability compounds the issue, as regulations for donor screening, serological and microbiological testing are stringent4–6. In addition, the necessity for short donor-to-recipient time frames and the potential for microbial contamination contributes further to the paucity of donor cornea availability7–8. Substantial recent efforts have focused on developing new modalities for corneal replacement, ranging from tissue engineering strategies9 to decellularization of xenografts;10–11 these technologies are still in their infancy. At present, tissue-engineered scaffolds are incapable of mimicking the native cornea’s biomechanical properties and molecular microarchitecture12–13. Xenografts, although anatomically and biomechanically similar to the human cornea, are antigenic and susceptible to rejection11, 14–17. In addition to these obstacles, severe ocular surface disorders in which the eyelids and conjunctiva are preserved but there is deficiency of limbal stem cells, such as after chemical burn and in aniridic keratopathy18–21, represents an unmet need among corneal disorders, and in most cases is not amenable to corneal transplantation. At present, keratoprosthesis implantation is the only viable alternative to corneal allograft surgery in such patients22, but the most commonly used device, the Boston keratoprosthesis23–25, still requires a donor cornea for implantation.
Prolonging the viability of corneal tissue in storage could mitigate some of the issues associated with the lack of donor corneas, improving overall accessibility. This is especially significant to those living in underprivileged countries7. Cryopreservation of corneal tissue in different media26–29, glycerol-preservation30, freeze-drying31, and ionizing irradiation (gamma and electron beam [E-beam]) represent different approaches aimed at extending the shelf life of corneas for transplantation. Unlike frozen and glycerin-preserved corneas, irradiated grafts are sterile and can be immediately used without the need for reconstitution. It has been shown that irradiation may reduce the allogenicity of donor corneas7. Tissue banks frequently use gamma irradiation for sterilization of biological tissues against various contaminations (e.g. bacterial, viral, fungal, prional contamination)32. Moreover, the transplanted gamma-irradiated human cornea has demonstrated satisfactory properties without graft rejection, neovascularization, or loss of transparency33.
E-beam irradiation is capable of much higher dosing rates than gamma irradiation, and this consequently reduces the necessary exposure time and potential degradation of the irradiated tissue34–36. In studies of long-term storage, E-beam irradiation has been shown to effectively sterilize corneal tissue, while only slightly increasing light scattering, and permitted tissue storage for up to 2 years37. However, to our knowledge, E-beam irradiation’s effect on the biomechanical, structural, and degradation properties of the cornea has not been comprehensively studied.
Herein, corneal tissues immersed in rHSA were irradiated with 25 kGy and their chemical, mechanical, optical, structural, and enzymatic degradation properties were evaluated. We have found E-beam irradiation does not induce detrimental effects on the cornea’s properties. E-beam irradiation potentially enables a simplified pre-assembly of the BK to a donor cornea in a central facility by a skilled technician, storage at ambient temperature for a prolonged period of time, allowing accessibility to keratoprosthesis treatment for corneal diseases world-wide (Fig. 1).
Figure 1.

Illustration of E-beam irradiation and preservation of corneas for full-thickness, lamellar, and keratoprosthesis applications.
Materials and Methods:
Materials.
Recombinant Human Albumin (rHSA) was acquired from InVitria (Junction City, KS) and dissolved in phosphate buffer saline (PBS) solution to a 20% w/w solution. Donor human corneas were kindly provided by Lions VisionGift (Portland, OR) for research purposes only and sent without donor identifying data, not requiring ethical approval.
E-beam irradiation.
Corneal tissues were placed in 5 mL glass vials, filled with rHSA solution, and irradiated using a Van de Graaff (Model K) electron accelerator (Electron Technology Company; South Windsor, CT) at 2.6 MeV. A dose rate of 5 kGy per pass was used to reach 25 kGy irradiation.
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR).
6-mm-diameter discs were dissected from native corneas (NC), E-beam irradiated corneas (E-beam), and E-beam irradiated corneas that were preserved for 6 months (E-beam-6), washed 3 times with distilled water, and freeze-dried overnight under 0.02 mbar. FTIR spectra of tissues were collected in the Mid-IR range using a Nicolet iS50 FT-IR Spectrometer (Thermo Scientific; Waltham, MA) equipped with a diamond Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) accessory. Spectra were obtained from 500 to 4000 cm−1 averaging 64 scans at 0.5 cm−1 resolution.
Swelling ratio.
Corneal Tissues (NC, E-Beam, and E-beam-6) were dissected into 6 mm discs, blot dried, and weighed (Wi). The tissues were then immersed in PBS solution and incubated at 37 °C for a recorded time (2–24 h). Finally, the swollen tissues were blot dried and weights were measured again (Ws). The swelling ratio (S) for the corneas [n = 5] were obtained by the following equation:
Evaluation of mechanical properties.
The tensile modulus and strength of the corneal tissues were measured using a Mark-10 ESM 303 motorized test stand (Mark-10 Corporation, NY, USA) using a 50N load cell. Sample corneal tissues were dissected into dumbbell-shaped specimens. The crosshead speed was 1 mm/min; the initial grip separation was 5 mm. The compression modulus was measured on the same instrument on 4-mm-diameter discs dissected from those groups [n = 5]. Both tensile and compression modulus was calculated from the linear derivative of the stress-strain curve in the high stiffness range (i.e. 20–40% strain).
Assessment of optical properties.
The optical properties of trephined corneas (6-mm-diameter central) from each group were evaluated in PBS using a UV–Vis spectrometer (Molecular Devices SpectraMax 384 Plus Microplate Reader, CA, USA). Transmittance spectra (%T) were acquired from 300–900 nm at 1 nm wavelength increments [n = 4] and corrected with PBS background. The mean %T for each group was plotted as a function of wavelength.
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM).
Specimens were fixed with Karnovsky’s fixative (50% strength, pH 7.4) (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA) overnight at room temperature. The samples were washed with 0.1 M Cacodylate Buffer (Electron Microscopy Sciences) for 5 min, then washed three times with PBS before post-fixing with immersion in 2% osmium tetroxide (Electron Microscopy Sciences) for 1.5 h at RT. Following this, the specimens were en bloc stained with 2% aqueous uranyl acetate for 30 min, then dehydrated in ethanol. The samples were then embedded in epoxy resin (Tousimis, Rockville, Maryland, USA) and 80nm thin sections were obtained with a Leica EM UC7 ultramicrotome (Leica Microsystems, Buffalo Grove, IL, USA, diamond blade). TEM analysis was obtained at 120 kV using an FEI Tecnai G2 Spirit transmission electron microscope, (FEI, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA). Collagen fibril diameter and collagen interfibrillar Brag spacing were quantified using ImageJ software (NIH, Bethesda, Maryland) from multiple images taken from each sample (n = 3).
In Vitro Biodegradation.
Enzymatic degradation of the corneal tissues was evaluated using collagenase from Clostridium histolyticum, as reported elsewhere10. Briefly, dissected specimens were placed in 0.1M Tris-HCL buffer (ph 7.4) with collagenase (5U/mL) and CaCl2 (5 mM) and incubated at 37 °C, with solution replacement at 8-hour intervals. Remaining residues were removed from the solution, immersed in DI water, and lyophilized. The dried masses at different time points (Wf) were weighed, and retention was calculated [n = 4] using the following equation:
Glucose diffusion.
A Static Franz cell system with a diameter of 9 mm, equipped with a small stirrer bar, (PermeGear, PA, USA) was used to evaluate diffusion of glucose through non-irradiated vs. irradiated corneas. Briefly, corneas were inserted between the two compartments of the Franz cell. The upper chamber was filled with 1 mL PBS and the bottom one was filled with a glucose solution with a concentration of 2000 mg/dL. The unit was placed inside an incubator at 37 °C, and the solutions were stirred with the magnetic stirrer. The diffusion of glucose through each cornea into the upper chamber was measured over time using a Counter Next EZ blood glucometer (Bayer, Parsippany, NJ, USA). Diffusion coefficients were determined as previously described38.
BK-Cornea fitting properties.
Corneal tissues were trephined with a 3 mm biopsy punch, assembled with BK, immersed in rHSA media, E-beam irradiated, and preserved at room temperature for 6 months.
For the adhesion test, the backplate was carefully removed, and the assemblies were placed on the designed corneal holder (Fig. 6d) and set up with a mechanical tester as previously described39. A pushing method was carried out with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The maximum force measured was averaged (n = 5) and compared to a control group (Control: after removing the irradiated BK stem from the corneal tissue, the stem was inserted back in the trephined cornea and test performed similarly).
Figure 6.

a) Burst pressure set up. The pressure of an artificial chamber set up with BK-carrier assembly for corneal tissues (NC, E-beam, E-beam-6) as a function of injected PBS volume (b) and consequent pressure/PBS volume slope (c). d) Schematic illustration of pushing test apparatus to measure the adhesion force between BK stem and human corneal tissue (NC, E-beam, E-beam-6) compared to control (irradiated BK stem was removed from the corneal tissue, the stem-carrier was assembled again and adhesion test was repeated) (e). f) Trephination diameter of the corneal tissues assessed and averaged from 4 orthogonal measurements shown in the inset [n = 4].
In the analysis of burst pressure, BK-cornea assemblies were placed in an artificial corneal chamber (Barron Precision Instruments; Grand Blanc, MI) equipped with a PBS delivery syringe pump and a digital pressure transducer (PS-2017, PASCO; Roseville, CA) for data collection. The syringe pump (NE-300, ArrEssPro Scientific; Farmingdale NY) delivered a consistent flow (0.2 ml/min) into the chamber until the pressure reached ca. 200 mm Hg.
The specimen’s trephination size was photographically assessed averaging 4 orthogonal measurements acquired from each cornea specimen (n = 5) using a high-resolution camera (Dino-Lite Edge, AM73915MZTL 5MP; Torrance, CA).
Optical Coherence Tomography (AS-OCT).
To assess how each step of treatment impacts the specimens and their thickness, Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography (AS-OCT) was performed (OCT Spectralis; Heidelberg Engineering Inc.; Franklin, MA). After acquiring several images for each cornea (n = 4), the thicknesses of both the central and peripheral sections of the cornea were measured and compared to those of NC control specimens. AS-OCT was also used in diagnostic analysis of donor tissue interface (between the donor tissue and the BK assembly) after irradiation and preservation for 6 months.
Results
Mechanical properties
Uniaxial extension of the corneal tissue pre and post-treatment showed that E-beam irradiation increased the tensile modulus of corneal tissue from 13.9 ± 0.6 MPa (NC) to 16.2 ± 1.6 MPa (E-beam) and 16.1 ± 1.3 MPa (E-beam-6) with p values of 0.0359, for both comparisons (Fig. 2a–b). A statistically insignificant decrease in tensile strength was observed from 7.81 ± 0.72 MPa (NC) to 7.27 ± 0.47 MPa (E-beam) and 7.22 ± 0.45 MPa (E-beam-6) with p values of 0.314 and 0.261, respectively (Fig. 2c). Extension at break showed similar behavior (NC: 110 ± 10 %, E-beam: 96 ± 12 % and 95 ± 11 %) (Fig. 2d). Uniaxial compression revealed significantly higher compression moduli in irradiated corneas (E-beam and E-beam-6) (4.50 ± 0.50 MPa and 4.32 ± 0.37 MPa, respectively) compared to those of NC (3.54 ± 0.30 MPa) with the p values of 0.0068 and 0.0231, respectively (Fig. 2e–f). In comparing 6-month preserved specimens versus ‘new’ corneas, we did not observe any significant differences in mechanical properties.
Figure 2.

Mechanical characterization of the human cornea after E-beam irradiation. a) Tensile measurement set up. b) Tensile modulus of the E-beam irradiated (E-beam: immediately after E-beam irradiation, and E-beam-6: 6 months after E-beam irradiation) corneas is significantly higher than that of the native cornea (NC). c) Tensile strength and extension break of E-beam irradiated cornea is slightly less than those of NC. d) Compression measurement set up. e) compression modulus of the E-beam irradiated corneas is significantly higher than that of NC.
Optical evaluation
The optical evaluation of corneal tissues noted high optical transmission (> 79%) in the visible spectrum for all three groups (Fig. 3). There is a transmittance loss in the UV range (300–400 nm) observed from 36.9 ± 3.2 % (NC) to 31.8 ± 2.6% (Ebeam) and 26.6 ± 4.9 % (E-beam6) with the p values 0.14 and 0.002, respectively (Fig. 3b). We also did not observe any noticeable color change in the corneal tissue upon irradiation and after preservation for 6 months, suggesting irradiation and preservation have negligible visible-range optical effects on corneal tissue.
Figure 3.

a) Transmission of NC, E-beam, and E-beam-6 as a function of wavelength (nm), and b) its quantifications in both UV (300–400 nm) and Visible (Vis: 400–900 nm) range. E-beam irradiation and preservation does not impact the optical transmission in the Vis range, yet they decrease transmission in the UV range.
Chemical and structural characterization
FTIR spectra of all three groups are nearly superimposable in the lower wavenumber range (450–2700 cm−1) (Fig. 4a). Significant increases in the intensities of the vibrational bands were observed in the upper acquired range from 2850 and 2917 cm−1, containing C-H -sp2 and C-H -sp3 stretching bands. These changes indicate E-beam exposure may have induced free radical formation in the irradiated specimens, recombining to form C-C and C=C bonds as previously described in polymeric materials40–41. FTIR spectra of E-beam and E-beam-6 are nearly superimposable across the acquired range, indicating perseveration of the irradiated cornea at room temperature for 6 months did not significantly impact the chemical properties of the cornea.
Figure 4.

a) Chemical characterization of corneas before and after irradiation (NC, E-beam, and E-beam-6) using attenuated total reflection-Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FT-IR) spectroscopy. Swelling ratio (b), retention of the corneal tissues in the presence of collagenase (c) before and after irradiation as a function of incubation time (T = 37 °C and 5% CO2). Glucose diffusion (d) through corneal tissues before and after irradiation.
Swelling studies up to 24 h show irradiated corneas exhibit significantly lower swelling ratios with a maximum swelling ratio of 25 ± 7 % compared to the NC (80 ± 8 %) (Fig. 4b). The preserved corneas showed similar swelling behavior to those of freshly irradiated corneas with a maximum swelling ratio of 26 ± 6 %.
In studies of biodegradation in collagenase, the retention of corneal tissue is a function of incubation time. E-beam irradiated corneas had statistically insignificantly higher stability compared to NC (Fig. 4c). While NC was completely digested after 35 h of incubation, nearly 5% of the residual mass was preserved in E-beam and E-beam-6 specimens. In contrast, glucose diffusion studies showed no significant difference between the permeability of the corneal tissue before (NC) and after irradiation (E-beam and E-beam-6) with p values > 0.9 (Fig. 4d).
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
The structural organization of the anterior, mid, and posterior sections of the corneal stroma, pre, and post-irradiation, are shown in Fig. 5a–b. The arrangements of collagen fibrils at both lower and higher magnifications seem similar among all groups for all three sections. Quantitative image analysis showed that the collagen fibril diameter and collagen interfibrillar Bragg spacing of all analyzed sections of the cornea were similar, indicating that irradiation and preservation did not alter the ultrastructure.
Figure 5.

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) micrographs of corneal tissues (NC, E-beam, and E-beam-6) at different layers of the cornea (anterior, mid, and posterior) and low (a) and high (b) magnifications. Quantifications of the collagen fibril diameter (c) and collagen interfibrillar Brag spacing (d). Scale bars: (a), 10μm; (b), 1μm.
BK-Cornea fitting properties
To examine if E-beam irradiation impacts the fitting properties of the assembled device and the adhesion between the BK stem and the trephined cornea in the preassembled device after irradiation or after preservation for 6 months, we performed burst pressure and adhesion tests.
Burst pressure measurements did not show leakage from the interface of the BK stem with donor tissue up to 200 mmHg (Fig. 6a–b) in all three specimen groups (NC, E-beam, and E-beam-6). This suggests irradiation and preservation did not induce expansion of the trephination opening or degradation of the corneal tissue adjacent to the stem; the latter could create a physical gap between the BK stem and donor tissue. The burst pressure analysis shows that irradiation significantly increased the slope of pressure/volume graphs. This suggests irradiated corneas possess higher stiffness, a finding supported by prior mechanical testing (e.g. higher tensile and compression moduli) (Fig. 2).
The adhesion test showed that the force necessary to remove the BK stem from the irradiated BK-carrier assembly immediately after irradiation (0.096 ± 0.035 N), and after preservation for 6 months (0.098 ± 0.034 N), are significantly higher than that of NC (0.020 ± 0.013) with p < 0.001 for both comparisons. We also re-assembled the BK stem with the irradiated corneal tissue and performed adhesion studies to determine if adhesion originates from mechanical (e.g. cornea contraction) or chemical factors (e.g. interfacial reactions at the donor cornea/BK stem). Our studies indicated that the adhesion force between the irradiated cornea and BK stem is 0.018 ± 0.014 N, similar to NC-BK stem specimens. We also recorded the trephination diameter before and after irradiation, and after irradiation and 6-month preservation. No significant differences were observed between groups (NC, E-beam, E-beam-6) (p > 0.7). These results suggest trephination size was not affected by irradiation, indicating the observed higher adhesion properties did not originate from a shrinking of the trephination opening induced by E-beam irradiation.
Optical Coherence Tomography (AS-OCT)
To evaluate the impact of E-beam irradiation on the physical properties of the cornea, AS-OCT analysis was performed (Fig. 7). This study indicates irradiated corneas are thicker than NC controls in both the corneal periphery and center (Fig. 7b). Cornea thickening or swelling effects did not appear to originate from irradiation but rather from the addition of rHSA. In our study, the rHSA incubated cornea control group exhibited higher thickness than post-irradiation specimens (Fig. 7a–b). After E-beam irradiation, corneal thickness measurements were stable for up to 6 months. In addition, AS-OCT analyses performed immediately after irradiation and after 6 months of preservation, the BK-carrier assembly was stable without deterioration of the BK-corneal interface, generation of unintended gaps, or any retraction or abnormality for the corneal tissue (Fig. 7a).
Figure 7.

a) AS-OCT of human corneal tissue, or/and Boston Keratoprosthesis (BK)-cornea pre-assembled devices (native cornea: NC) and after each step of treatment: i) addition of rHSA media, ii) E-beam irradiation, and iii) and after 6 months of preservation at room temperature along with b) the quantifications of their thickness from central and peripheral sections of the cornea. After 6 months of irradiation, the AS-OCT showed that there is no unintended space at the interface of the corneal tissue (1) and BK stem (2), suggesting that there is no deterioration at the interface or dilation of the trephination opening.
Discussion
A full characterization of biological implants is paramount to determining their suitability for clinical applications. Despite US FDA approval, and wide availability of E-beam-irradiated human corneas for human implantation, with few exceptions37, the biological effects of E-beam irradiation on corneal tissue have not been published. We evaluated the impact of E-beam irradiation on the chemical, optical, structural, mechanical, and biological properties of corneal tissue. We demonstrated that E-beam irradiation induces no apparent detrimental effects on the tissue and that the irradiated cornea’s properties are retained for up to 6 months after irradiation.
E-beam irradiation increased the tensile modulus of the cornea yet decreased its tensile strength. The former indicates the interfibrillar crosslinking of the collagen fibrils and the latter irradiation-induced chain/fibril scission. Such crosslinking between collagen fibrils also accounts for the increased compression modulus of the corneal tissue (Fig. 2d–e). A crosslinked structure retaining mechanical properties over time suggests the stability of irradiated cornea and indicates the suitability of E-beam treatment to preserve native biomechanical characteristics of cornea.
Sterilization of bone, bone-tendon-bone, and anterior cruciate ligament using E-beam have been well studied. Most studies suggest irradiation conditions such as media compositions affect the biomechanical properties of the tissues42–43. While some studies pointed out that the higher doses have detrimental effects on biomechanical properties of studied tissues, most reports indicate minimal changes at 25 kGy36, 42–46, consistent with our study’s findings.
Corneas irradiated at 25 kGy showed slightly higher visible optical transmittance. The higher transmission stems from inter-fibril crosslinking induced during irradiation, impeding tissue swelling. The latter has previously been shown to cause light scattering, reducing the transparency of the cornea47–49. Alternatively, gamma irradiation has been shown to lead to the yellowing of corneal tissue50. A reduced UV transmittance is likely due to the formation of absorbing functional moieties such as C=C bonds. After preservation, however, the transmission of light in the entire spectrum slightly declines, which is believed to originate from minor swelling of tissue over time as previously described37.
The swelling ratio of the irradiated corneas was significantly lower than in the NC control group (Fig. 4c). This observation complements the chemical and mechanical studies performed, denoting the formation of crosslinking between collagen fibrils. Such crosslinking is also responsible for resistance to biodegradation of irradiated specimens versus the control group (Fig. 4c). The irradiation and the resultant collagen fibril crosslinking did not significantly alter the ultrastructural appearance (Fig. 5). Such an arrangement of collagen in the cornea is responsible for the optical and mechanical integrity of the cornea and also regulates corneal cellular functions51–53.
Corneal allograft surgery is the primary solution when the cornea has lost its optical transparency. However, some conditions, including repeated corneal allograft rejection, are associated with a poor prognosis. Implantation of a BK, the most widely used prosthetic cornea, is a valued alternative for such patients54–57. Although the most common indication for the implantation is multiple allograft failure54, patients with chemical ocular injury58–59, atopic keratoconjunctivitis60 and other causes of limbal stem cell deficiency61 may also benefit from BK surgery, and indications for its use are expanding62–67. However, complications of surgery are significant, and include glaucoma, keratolysis (corneal melt), retro-prosthetic membrane, sterile vitritis, infectious keratitis, and endophthalmitis68–71, any of which can lead to loss of recovered vision.
Retroprosthetic membrane is the most common complication of BK implantation, occurring in up to 65% of BK recipients70, and is most common when the recipient has congenital aniridia59. Retroprosthetic membranes not only obstruct the visual axis to reduce vision, but are also associated with sterile keratolysis72, presumably due to reduced access of the cornea to nutrients from the aqueous humor70. Keratolysis can lead to corneal perforation, hypotony, infection, suprachoroidal hemorrhage, and device extrusion69. Our evaluation of glucose permeability of corneal samples before and after irradiation showed no impact on the diffusion of glucose through irradiated corneal tissue, indicating that E-beam irradiation should not contribute to keratolysis (Fig. 4d). In addition, chemical and biodegradation analyses showed no impact on tissue stability and less degradation by collagenase after irradiation. Based on our results, an E-beam irradiated cornea within a pre-assembled BK should be no less resistant to melt than native corneal tissue.
Currently, the BK device is ethylene oxide sterilized, shipped to a hospital, then assembled to a fresh corneal donor graft in the operating room at the time of surgery. Pre-assembly of BK followed by E-beam sterilization could permit room temperature storage of the assembled device, bypassing many current obstacles for cornea-blind patients. Gamma irradiation of an assembled BK has been previously proposed73. Our data indicate that E-beam irradiation presents distinct advantages for the preservation of properties of the PMMA component and the corneal carrier for the BK device34, 74.
Remarkably, our burst pressure studies showed no interfacial leakage between BK stem and donor cornea to at least 200 mmHg pressure. Our measurements of trephination size also imply a negligible change as a consequence of irradiation. The adhesion study suggests irradiation may induce chemical bonding between BK stem and corneal tissue, possibly improving seal quality. Along with the AS-OCT images, preservation for 6 months post-irradiation did not introduce any loss of adhesion between the BK stem and corneal tissue. The findings here demonstrate that 6 months after pre-assembly and irradiation, the corneal tissues remained stable in the assembled devices. This is analogous to what is required in BK implanted patients75–77.
In summary, E-beam irradiation of corneal tissue, and its pre-assembly with the BK, does not have a significant negative impact on the structural, chemical, mechanical, or optical properties of the corneal tissue. E-beam irradiation sterilizes the tissue and enables its prolonged storage at room temperature. This may address obstacles associated with the lack of donor corneas globally, especially in underprivileged countries lacking organ banks and robust, rapid transportation systems. Preassembled, E-beam sterilized BK devices would improve access in locales where donor tissues are scarce or unavailable, potentially providing an accessible, expert-assembled, room temperature device for patients in regions where corneal blindness from severe ocular surface disease is most common. This would also reduce operating time and avoid potential errors in assembly by surgeons. Further advancements in the field may arrive in the form of more affordable carrier donors, including adapted xenografts11, 50 or artificial constructs9, 78–79. Until then, we suggest E-beam sterilization of a preassembled BK, which this study demonstrates would allow long-term ambient temperature storage, offers a potentially more accessible and safer process to treat corneal blindness.
Acknowledgments
This work in a part was supported by a Barbara L. Crow Investigator-Concept Grant from Lions VisionGift, Portland, Oregon, Boston Keratoprosthesis, and EBAA/ Richard Lindstrom Research Grant (530720). R.S. was supported in part by the K99 grant from NIH award no. K99 EY030553. This work was performed in part at the Center for Nanoscale Systems (CNS), Harvard University, a member of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure Network (NNCI), which is supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF award no. 1541959.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Conflict of Interest
SS, HS, MMI, CHD, EIP, and JC are employees at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear, a nonprofit hospital that markets the Boston keratoprosthesis. They receive no royalties from sale of the device. KDT and CP are employees of Lions VisionGift, which markets E-beam irradiated corneal tissue. They receive no royalties from sale of irradiated corneas.
References:
- 1.Pascolini D; Mariotti SP, Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol 2012, 96 (5), 614–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Oliva MS; Schottman T; Gulati M, Turning the tide of corneal blindness. Indian J Ophthalmol 2012, 60 (5), 423–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Gain P; Jullienne R; He Z; Aldossary M; Acquart S; Cognasse F; Thuret G, Global Survey of Corneal Transplantation and Eye Banking. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016, 134 (2), 167–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hara H; Cooper DK, Xenotransplantation--the future of corneal transplantation? Cornea 2011, 30 (4), 371–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Qazi Y; Hamrah P, Corneal Allograft Rejection: Immunopathogenesis to Therapeutics. J Clin Cell Immunol 2013, 2013 (Suppl 9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.O’Day DM, Diseases potentially transmitted through corneal transplantation. Ophthalmology 1989, 96 (8), 1133–7; discussion 1137–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Stevenson W; Cheng SF; Emami-Naeini P; Hua J; Paschalis EI; Dana R; Saban DR, Gamma-irradiation reduces the allogenicity of donor corneas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012, 53 (11), 7151–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chae JJ; Choi JS; Lee JD; Lu Q; Stark WJ; Kuo IC; Elisseeff JH, Physical and Biological Characterization of the Gamma-Irradiated Human Cornea. Cornea 2015, 34 (10), 1287–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Islam MM; Sharifi R; Gonzalez-Andrades M, Corneal Tissue Engineering. In Corneal Regeneration : Therapy and Surgery, Alió JL; Alió del Barrio JL; Arnalich-Montiel F, Eds. Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2019; pp 23–37. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Islam MM; Sharifi R; Mamodaly S; Islam R; Nahra D; Abusamra DB; Hui PC; Adibnia Y; Goulamaly M; Paschalis EI; Cruzat A; Kong J; Nilsson PH; Argueso P; Mollnes TE; Chodosh J; Dohlman CH; Gonzalez-Andrades M, Effects of gamma radiation sterilization on the structural and biological properties of decellularized corneal xenografts. Acta biomaterialia 2019, 96, 330–344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sharifi R; Yang Y; Adibnia Y; Dohlman CH; Chodosh J; Gonzalez-Andrades M, Finding an Optimal Corneal Xenograft Using Comparative Analysis of Corneal Matrix Proteins Across Species. Sci Rep 2019, 9 (1), 1876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Islam MM; Buznyk O; Reddy JC; Pasyechnikova N; Alarcon EI; Hayes S; Lewis P; Fagerholm P; He C; Iakymenko S; Liu W; Meek KM; Sangwan VS; Griffith M, Biomaterials-enabled cornea regeneration in patients at high risk for rejection of donor tissue transplantation. NPJ Regen Med 2018, 3, 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Fagerholm P; Lagali NS; Merrett K; Jackson WB; Munger R; Liu Y; Polarek JW; Soderqvist M; Griffith M, A biosynthetic alternative to human donor tissue for inducing corneal regeneration: 24-month follow-up of a phase 1 clinical study. Sci Transl Med 2010, 2 (46), 46ra61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Badylak SF, Decellularized allogeneic and xenogeneic tissue as a bioscaffold for regenerative medicine: factors that influence the host response. Ann Biomed Eng 2014, 42 (7), 1517–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Cissell DD; Hu JC; Griffiths LG; Athanasiou KA, Antigen removal for the production of biomechanically functional, xenogeneic tissue grafts. J Biomech 2014, 47 (9), 1987–96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lawson JH; Platt JL, Molecular barriers to xenotransplantation. Transplantation 1996, 62 (3), 303–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Gilbert TW; Sellaro TL; Badylak SF, Decellularization of tissues and organs. Biomaterials 2006, 27 (19), 3675–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Iyer G; Srinivasan B; Agarwal S, Algorithmic approach to management of acute ocular chemical injuries-I’s and E’s of Management. Ocul Surf 2019, 17 (2), 179–185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Wagoner MD, Chemical injuries of the eye: current concepts in pathophysiology and therapy. Surv Ophthalmol 1997, 41 (4), 275–313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ihnatko R; Eden U; Fagerholm P; Lagali N, Congenital Aniridia and the Ocular Surface. Ocul Surf 2016, 14 (2), 196–206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Akpek EK; Harissi-Dagher M; Petrarca R; Butrus SI; Pineda R; Aquavella JV; Dohlman CH, Outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis in aniridia: a retrospective multicenter study. Am J Ophthalmol 2007, 144 (2), 227–231. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.de la Paz MF; Salvador-Culla B; Charoenrook V; Temprano J; Alvarez de Toledo J; Grabner G; Michael R; Barraquer RI, Osteo-odonto-, Tibial bone and Boston keratoprosthesis in clinically comparable cases of chemical injury and autoimmune disease. Ocul Surf 2019, 17 (3), 476–483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Traish AS; Chodosh J, Expanding application of the Boston type I keratoprosthesis due to advances in design and improved post-operative therapeutic strategies. Semin Ophthalmol 2010, 25 (5–6), 239–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Dohlman CH; Harissi-Dagher M; Khan BF; Sippel K; Aquavella JV; Graney JM, Introduction to the use of the Boston keratoprosthesis. Exp Rev Ophthalmol 2014, 1 (1), 41–48. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Dohlman CH; Cruzat A; White M, The Boston keratoprosthesis 2014: a step in the evolution of artificial corneas. Spektrum der Augenheilkunde 2015, 28 (6), 226–233. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Halberstadt M; Bohnke M; Athmann S; Hagenah M, Cryopreservation of human donor corneas with dextran. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003, 44 (12), 5110–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mueller FO; Casey TA; Trevor-Roper PD, Use of Deep-Frozen Human Cornea in Full-Thickness Grafts. Br Med J 1964, 2 (5407), 473–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bourne WM; Nelson LR; Hodge DO, Comparison of three methods for human corneal cryopreservation that utilize dimethyl sulfoxide. Cryobiology 1999, 39 (1), 47–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Van Horn DL; Schultz RO, Corneal preservation: recent advances. Surv Ophthalmol 1977, 21 (4), 301–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Feilmeier MR; Tabin GC; Williams L; Oliva M, The use of glycerol-preserved corneas in the developing world. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2010, 17 (1), 38–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Leopold IH; Adler FH, Use of frozen-dried cornea as transplant material. Arch Ophthal 1947, 37 (3), 268–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Singh R; Singh D; Singh A, Radiation sterilization of tissue allografts: A review. World J Radiol 2016, 8 (4), 355–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wee SW; Choi SU; Kim JC, Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty Using Irradiated Acellular Cornea with Amniotic Membrane Transplantation for Intractable Ocular Surface Diseases. Korean J Ophthalmol 2015, 29 (2), 79–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Silindir Gunay M; Ozer Y, Sterilization methods and the comparison of E-Beam sterilization with gamma radiation sterilization. 2009; Vol. 34, p 43–53. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Silindir Gunay M; Ozer Y, Sterilization methods and the comparison of E-Beam sterilization with gamma radiation sterilization. FABAD J Pharm Sci 2009, 34, 43–53. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Hoburg AT; Keshlaf S; Schmidt T; Smith M; Gohs U; Perka C; Pruss A; Scheffler S, Effect of electron beam irradiation on biomechanical properties of patellar tendon allografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2010, 38 (6), 1134–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Tran KD; Li Y; Holiman JD; Tang M; Huang D; Straiko MD; Stoeger CG, Light scattering measurements in electron-beam sterilized corneas stored in recombinant human serum albumin. Cell Tissue Bank 2018, 19 (1), 19–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Myung D; Derr K; Huie P; Noolandi J; Ta KP; Ta CN, Glucose permeability of human, bovine, and porcine corneas in vitro. Ophthalmic Res 2006, 38 (3), 158–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Sharifi R; Mahmoudzadeh S; Islam MM; Koza D; Dohlman CH; Chodosh J; Gonzalez-Andrades M, Covalent functionalization of pmma surface with l-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine (L-DOPA) to enhance its biocompatibility and adhesion to corneal tissue. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 7, 1900767. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Tiwari P; Srivastava AK; Khattak BQ; Verma S; Upadhyay A; Sinha AK; Ganguli T; Lodha GS; Deb SK, Effect of electron beam irradiation on PMMA films. AIP Conf Proc 2012, 1447 (1), 587–588. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Haji-Saeid M; Sampa MHO; Chmielewski AG, Radiation treatment for sterilization of packaging materials. Radiation Physics Chem 2007, 76 (8), 1535–1541. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Kaminski A; Gut G; Marowska J; Lada-Kozlowska M; Biwejnis W; Zasacka M, Mechanical properties of radiation-sterilised human Bone-Tendon-Bone grafts preserved by different methods. Cell Tissue Bank 2009, 10 (3), 215–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Gut G; Marowska J; Jastrzebska A; Olender E; Kaminski A, Structural mechanical properties of radiation-sterilized human Bone-Tendon-Bone grafts preserved by different methods. Cell Tissue Bank 2016, 17 (2), 277–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Elenes EY; Hunter SA, Soft-tissue allografts terminally sterilized with an electron beam are biomechanically equivalent to aseptic, nonsterilized tendons. J Bone Joint Surg 2014, 96 (16), 1321–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Kaminski A; Grazka E; Jastrzebska A; Marowska J; Gut G; Wojciechowski A; Uhrynowska-Tyszkiewicz I, Effect of accelerated electron beam on mechanical properties of human cortical bone: influence of different processing methods. Cell Tissue Bank 2012, 13 (3), 375–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Schmidt T; Hoburg A; Broziat C; Smith MD; Gohs U; Pruss A; Scheffler S, Sterilization with electron beam irradiation influences the biomechanical properties and the early remodeling of tendon allografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Cell Tissue Bank 2012, 13 (3), 387–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Clark JI, Order and disorder in the transparent media of the eye. Exp Eye Res 2004, 78 (3), 427–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Meek KM; Knupp C, Corneal structure and transparency. Prog Retin Eye Res 2015, 49, 1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Meek KM; Leonard DW; Connon CJ; Dennis S; Khan S, Transparency, swelling and scarring in the corneal stroma. Eye 2003, 17 (8), 927–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Islam MM; Sharifi R; Mamodaly S; Islam R; Nahra D; Abusamra DB; Hui PC;Adibnia Y; Goulamaly M; Paschalis EI; Cruzat A; Kong J; Nilsson PH; Argueso P; Mollnes TE; Chodosh J; Dohlman CH; Gonzalez-Andrades M, Effects of gamma radiation sterilization on the structural and biological properties of decellularized corneal xenografts. Acta Biomater. 2019, 96, 330–344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Gelse K; Poschl E; Aigner T, Collagens--structure, function, and biosynthesis. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2003, 55 (12), 1531–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Meek KM, Corneal collagen-its role in maintaining corneal shape and transparency. Biophys Rev 2009, 1 (2), 83–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Zhou HY; Cao Y; Wu J; Zhang WS, Role of corneal collagen fibrils in corneal disorders and related pathological conditions. Int J Ophthalmol 2017, 10 (5), 803–811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Ma JJ; Graney JM; Dohlman CH, Repeat penetrating keratoplasty versus the Boston keratoprosthesis in graft failure. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2005, 45 (4), 49–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Chiou AG; Florakis GJ; Kazim M, Management of conjunctival cicatrizing diseases and severe ocular surface dysfunction. Surv Ophthalmol 1998, 43 (1), 19–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Al Arfaj K, Boston keratoprosthesis – Clinical outcomes with wider geographic use and expanding indications – A systematic review. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2015, 29 (3), 212–221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Riau AK; Venkatraman SS; Dohlman CH; Mehta JS, Surface Modifications of the PMMA Optic of a Keratoprosthesis to Improve Biointegration. Cornea 2017, 36 Suppl 1, S15–S25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Shanbhag SS; Saeed HN; Paschalis EI; Chodosh J, Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 for limbal stem cell deficiency after severe chemical corneal injury: A systematic review. Ocul Surf 2018, 16 (3), 272–281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Rudnisky CJ; Belin MW; Guo R; Ciolino JB; Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study, G., Visual Acuity Outcomes of the Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1: Multicenter Study Results. Am J Ophthalmol 2016, 162, 89–98 e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Jabbehdari S; Starnes TW; Kurji KH; Eslani M; Cortina MS; Holland EJ; Djalilian AR, Management of advanced ocular surface disease in patients with severe atopic keratoconjunctivitis. Ocul Surf 2019, 17 (2), 303–309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Srikumaran D; Munoz B; Aldave AJ; Aquavella JV; Hannush SB; Schultze R; Belin M; Akpek EK, Long-term Outcomes of Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Implantation: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort. Ophthalmology 2014, 121 (11), 2159–2164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Sayegh RR; Ang LP; Foster CS; Dohlman CH, The Boston keratoprosthesis in Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol 2008, 145 (3), 438–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Dohlman CH; Terada H, Keratoprosthesis in pemphigoid and Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Adv Exp Med Biol 1998, 438, 1021–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Chan CC; Holland EJ; Sawyer WI; Neff KD; Petersen MR; Riemann CD, Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis combined with silicone oil for treatment of hypotony in prephthisical eyes. Cornea 2011, 30 (10), 1105–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Pavan-Langston D; Dohlman CH, Boston keratoprosthesis treatment of herpes zoster neurotrophic keratopathy. Ophthalmology 2008, 115 (2 Suppl), S21–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Khan BF; Harissi-Dagher M; Pavan-Langston D; Aquavella JV; Dohlman CH, The Boston keratoprosthesis in herpetic keratitis. Arch Ophthalmol 2007, 125 (6), 745–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Nonpassopon M; Niparugs M; Cortina MS, Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis: Updated Perspectives. Clin Ophthalmol 2020, 14, 1189–1200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Kanu LN; Niparugs M; Nonpassopon M; Karas FI; de la Cruz JM; Cortina MS, Predictive factors of Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis outcomes: A long-term analysis. Ocul Surf 2020, 18 (4), 613–619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Daoud R; Sabeti S; Harissi-Dagher M, Management of corneal melt in patients with Boston Keratoprosthesis Type 1: Repair versus repeat. Ocul Surf 2020, 18 (4), 713–717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Park J; Phrueksaudomchai P; Cortina MS, Retroprosthetic membrane: A complication of keratoprosthesis with broad consequences. Ocul Surf 2020, 18 (4), 893–900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Cortina MS; Karas FI; Bouchard C; Aref AA; Djalilian A; Vajaranant TS, Staged ocular fornix reconstruction for glaucoma drainage device under neoconjunctiva at the time of Boston type 1 Keratoprosthesis implantation. Ocul Surf 2019, 17 (2), 336–340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Sivaraman KR; Hou JH; Allemann N; de la Cruz J; Cortina MS, Retroprosthetic membrane and risk of sterile keratolysis in patients with type I Boston Keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol 2013, 155 (5), 814–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Gonzalez-Andrades M; Sharifi R; Islam MM; Divoux T; Haist M; Paschalis EI; Gelfand L; Mamodaly S; Di Cecilia L; Cruzat A; Ulm FJ; Chodosh J; Delori F; Dohlman CH, Improving the practicality and safety of artificial corneas: Pre-assembly and gamma-rays sterilization of the Boston Keratoprosthesis. Ocul Surf 2018, 16 (3), 322–330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Sharifi S; Islam MM; Sharifi H; Islam R; Huq TN; Nilsson PH; Mollnes TE; Tran DK; Patzer C; Dohlman CH; Patra HK; Paschalis E; Gonzalez-Andrades M; Chodosh J, Electron beam sterilization of poly (methyl methacrylate) - physicochemical and biological aspects. Macromol Biosci In press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Garcia JP Jr.; Ritterband DC; Buxton DF; De la Cruz J, Evaluation of the stability of Boston type I keratoprosthesis-donor cornea interface using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Cornea 2010, 29 (9), 1031–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Cruzat A; Shukla A; Dohlman CH; Colby K, Wound anatomy after type 1 Boston KPro using oversized back plates. Cornea 2013, 32 (12), 1531–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Qian CX; Hassanaly S; Harissi-Dagher M, Anterior segment optical coherence tomography in the long-term follow-up and detection of glaucoma in Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology 2015, 122 (2), 317–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Islam MM; Ravichandran R; Olsen D; Ljunggren MK; Fagerholm P; Lee CJ; Griffith M; Phopase J, Self-assembled collagen-like-peptide implants as alternatives to human donor corneal transplantation. RSC Advances 2016, 6 (61), 55745–55749. [Google Scholar]
- 79.Pasyechnikova N; Vit V; Leus M; Iakymenko S; Buznyk O; Kolomiichuk S; Nasinnyk I; Mirazul Islam M; Griffith M, Collagen-based bioengineered substitutes of donor corneal allograft implantation: assessment and hypotheses. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol 2012, 1 (1), 10–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
