Novel technique for amniotic membrane transplantation for acute Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis patients.
3D printing
Amniotic fornical ring
Amniotic membrane transplantation
Stevens-Johnson syndrome
Toxic epidermal necrolysis
Journal
Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
02
03
2023
revised:
27
07
2023
accepted:
31
07
2023
medline:
21
8
2023
pubmed:
21
8
2023
entrez:
21
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To report a novel technique to facilitate amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) for acute stage Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). Laboratory investigation and retrospective, single-center case series. The polylactic acid (PLA) amniotic fornical ring (AFR) have been successfully manufactured by three-dimensional (3D) printing technology for AMT. This study retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 5 SJS/TEN patients at the acute stage between 2019 and 2023. Patients were surgically treated with AFR or sutured amniotic membrane transplant (SAMT). Epidemiology, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), acute ocular severity score, operative duration, epithelial healing time, amniotic dissolution and follow-up time were evaluated. Of all five patients, three patients (6 eyes) received AFR/AMT (Group A), and 2 patients (4 eyes) received SAMT (Group B). There were no significant differences between two groups in the mean preoperative days and vision changes. The mean operation duration was 11.7 ± 3.8 mins in group A. Compared with the SAMT (48.8 ± 5.3 mins), the operation duration was reduced by 76.02%. The mean times for epithelial healing were 32.5 ± 29.2 days in group A and 12.0 ± 0.0 days in group B. In addition, there were no significant side effects of 3D-printed sterile AFR on the eyes. 3D-printed PLA scaffolds could be used as an AFR device for acute SJS/TEN. In addition, personalized 3D-printed AFR is superior to conventional SAMT in operation duration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37600383
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18853
pii: S2405-8440(23)06061-9
pmc: PMC10432697
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Langues
eng
Pagination
e18853Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Dec;208:331-341
pubmed: 31326519
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Jul 07;8:670643
pubmed: 34307405
Eye Contact Lens. 2013 Sep;39(5):341-7
pubmed: 23945524
Arch Dermatol. 1993 Jan;129(1):92-6
pubmed: 8420497
Cornea. 2010 Mar;29(3):359-61
pubmed: 20098313
Postgrad Med J. 2021 Oct;97(1152):630-631
pubmed: 32665378
Ocul Surf. 2022 Jan;23:216-218
pubmed: 34728380
Ocul Surf. 2020 Jul;18(3):517-522
pubmed: 32200005
Ocul Surf. 2016 Jan;14(1):31-6
pubmed: 26387869
Cornea. 2009 Dec;28(10):1118-23
pubmed: 19770726
Eye Contact Lens. 2013 May;39(3):e7-11
pubmed: 22683916
Ocul Surf. 2019 Jul;17(3):560-564
pubmed: 30872140
Cornea. 2022 Jul 1;41(7):840-844
pubmed: 34483269
Ocul Surf. 2016 Jan;14(1):56-63
pubmed: 26387870
Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 Aug;126(8):1059-66
pubmed: 18695099
Am J Ophthalmol. 2021 Nov;231:194-199
pubmed: 34214456
Int J Bioprint. 2021 Oct 1;7(4):418
pubmed: 34805597
J Appl Microbiol. 2019 Dec;127(6):1612-1626
pubmed: 31021482
Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 Feb;149(2):203-213.e2
pubmed: 20005508