Personalized 3D-printed amniotic fornical ring for ocular surface reconstruction
In the present work, we used three-dimensional (3D) printing technology to make a polylactic acid (PLA) amniotic fornical ring (AFR) for ocular surface reconstruction. This work is a retrospective and interventional case series of patients with ocular surface diseases who underwent either personalized 3D-printed AFR-assisted amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) or sutured AMT (SAMT). Patient epidemiology, treatment, operative duration, epithelial healing time, retention time, vision changes, morbidity, and costs were analyzed. Thirty-one patients (40 eyes) and 19 patients (22 eyes) were enrolled in the 3D-printed AFR group and the SAMT group, respectively. The clinical indications of AFR and SAMT were similar, such as corneal and/or conjunctival epithelial defects due to chemical burns, thermal burns, Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). The mean dissolution time was 15 ± 11 days in the AFR group, compared with 14 ± 7 days in the SAMT group. The percentage of healed corneal area was 90.91% (66.10%– 100.00%) for AFR and 93.67% (60.23%–100.00%) for SAMT. The median time for corneal epithelial healing was 14 (7–75) days in the AFR group and 30 (14–55) days in the suture AMT group. There were no significant differences in the initial visual acuity, final visual acuity, or improvement in visual acuity between the two groups. The operation duration in the AFR group was significantly shorter than that in the SAMT group. Regarding the cost analysis, the average cost per eye in the AFR group was significantly lower than that in the SAMT group. Furthermore, 3D-printed and sterile AFR showed no obvious side effects on the eyes. Our results suggested that 3D-printed PLA scaffolds could be used as an AFR device for ocular surface disease. In addition, personalized 3D-printed AFR is superior to conventional AMT in operation duration and cost effectiveness, thereby reducing the financial burden on our health care system.
1. Mamede AC, Carvalho MJ, Abrantes AM, et al., 2012, Amniotic membrane: From structure and functions to clinical applications. Cell Tissue Res, 349(2):447–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-012-1424-6
2. Finger PT, Jain P, Mukkamala SK, 2019, Super-thick amniotic membrane graft for ocular surface reconstruction. Am J Ophthalmol, 198:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.09.035
3. Sangwan VS, Burman S, Tejwani S, et al., 2007, Amniotic membrane transplantation: A review of current indications in the management of ophthalmic disorders. Indian J Ophthalmol, 55(4):251–260. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.33036
4. Morkin MI, Hamrah P, 2018, Efficacy of self-retained cryopreserved amniotic membrane for treatment of neuropathic corneal pain. Ocul Surf, 16(1):132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2017.10.003
5. Zhou TE, Robert MC, 2022, Comparing ProKera with amniotic membrane transplantation: Indications, outcomes, and costs. Cornea, 41(7):840–844. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000002852
6. Mei Y, He C, Gao C, et al., 2021, 3D-printed degradable anti-tumor scaffolds for controllable drug delivery. Int J Bioprint, 7(4):418. https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v7i4.418
7. Dehghai S, Rasoulianboroujeni M, Ghasemi H, et al., 2018, 3D-printed membrane as an alternative to amniotic membrane for ocular surface/conjunctival defect reconstruction: An in vitro & in vivo study. Biomaterials, 174:95–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.05.013
8. Zhang B, Cristescu R, Chrisey DB, et al., 2020, Solvent-based extrusion 3D printing for the fabrication of tissue engineering scaffolds. Int J Bioprint, 6(1):211. https://doi.org/10.18063/ijb.v6i1.211
9. Singhvi MS, Zinjarde SS, Gokhale DV, 2019, Polylactic acid: Synthesis and biomedical applications. J Appl Microbiol, 127(6):1612–1626. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14290
10. Ma KN, Thanos A, Chodosh J, et al., 2016, A novel technique for amniotic membrane transplantation in patients with acute Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Ocul Surf, 14(1):31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2015.07.002
11. Clare G, Suleman H, Bunce C, et al., 2012, Amniotic membrane transplantation for acute ocular burns. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012(9):CD009379. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009379.pub2
12. Lange C, Feltgen N, Junker B, et al., 2009, Resolving the clinical acuity categories “hand motion” and “counting fingers” using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test (FrACT). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 247(1):137–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-008-0926-0
13. Roper-Hall MJ, 1965, Thermal and chemical burns. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K (1962), 85:631–53.
14. Dua HS, King AJ, Joseph A, 2001, A new classification of ocular surface burns. Br J Ophthalmol, 85(11):1379–1383. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.85.11.1379
15. Shanbhag SS, Hall L, Chodosh J, et al., 2020, Long-term outcomes of amniotic membrane treatment in acute Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis. Ocul Surf, 18(3):517–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2020.03.004
16. Kheirkhah A, Blanco G, Casas V, et al., 2008, Surgical strategies for fornix reconstruction based on symblepharon severity. Am J Ophthalmol, 146(2):266–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2008.03.028
17. Sharma N, Singh D, Sobti A, et al., 2012, Course and outcome of accidental sodium hydroxide ocular injury. Am J Ophthalmol, 154(4):740.e2–749.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2012.04.018
18. Liu BQ, Wang ZC, Liu LM, et al., 2008, Sutureless fixation of amniotic membrane patch as a therapeutic contact lens by using a polymethyl methacrylate ring and fibrin sealant in a rabbit model. Cornea, 27(1):74–79. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e318156cb08
19. Liang X, Liu Z, Lin Y, et al., 2012, A modified symblepharon ring for sutureless amniotic membrane patch to treat acute ocular surface burns. J Burn Care Res, 33(2):e32–e38. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCR.0b013e318239f9b9
20. Wang X, Yang C, Yu Y, et al., 2022, In situ 3D bioprinting living photosynthetic scaffolds for autotrophic wound healing. Research (Washington, D.C.), 2022:9794745. https://doi.org/10.34133/2022/9794745
21. Kong B, Chen Y, Liu R, et al., 2020, Fiber reinforced GelMA hydrogel to induce the regeneration of corneal stroma. Nat Commun, 11(1):1435. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14887-9
22. Silverman JIM, Huffman JM, Zimmerman MB, et al., 2021, Indications for wear, visual outcomes, and complications of custom imprint 3D scanned scleral contact lens use. Cornea, 40(5):596–602. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000002588