Amniotic membrane transplantation: structural and biological properties, tissue preparation, application and clinical indications

The amniotic membrane is a single epithelial layer of the placenta. It has anti-inflammatory, anti-scarring, anti-angiogenic and possibly bactericidal properties. The basement membrane of the amniotic membrane acts as a substrate to encourage healing and re-epithelialisation. It has been used in many ocular surface diseases including persistent epithelial defects (corneal or conjunctival), chemical or thermal burns, limbal stem cell deficiency, cicatrising conjunctivitis, ocular graft versus host disease, microbial keratitis, corneal perforation, bullous keratopathy, dry eye disease, corneal haze following refractive surgery and cross-linking, band keratopathy, ocular surface neoplasia, pterygium surgery, and ligneous conjunctivitis. This review provides an up-to-date overview of amniotic membrane transplantation including the structural and biological properties, preparation and application, clinical indications, and commercially available products.

Potential Therapeutic Effects of Human Amniotic Epithelial Cells on Gynecological Disorders Leading to Infertility or Abortion

The induction of feto-maternal tolerance, fetal non-immunogenicity, and the regulation of mother's immune system are essential variables in a successful pregnancy. Fetal membranes have been used as a source of stem cells and biological components in recent decades. Human amniotic epithelial cells (hAEC) have stem/progenitor characteristics like those found in the amniotic membrane. Based on their immunomodulatory capabilities, recent studies have focused on the experimental and therapeutic applications of hAECs in allograft transplantation, autoimmune disorders, and gynecological problems such as recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA), recurrent implantation failure (RIF), and premature ovarian failure (POF). This review discusses some of the immunomodulatory features and therapeutic potential of hAECs in preventing infertility, miscarriage, and implantation failure by controlling the maternal immune system.

Amniotic membrane transplantation for acute ocular burns

BACKGROUND

Ocular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or direct heat. One effect of the burn is damage to the limbal epithelial stem cells of the ocular surface with delayed re-epithelialisation, stem cell failure, and conjunctivalisation of the cornea. Amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) performed in the acute phase (day 0 to day 7) following an ocular surface burn is claimed to reduce pain and accelerate healing. The surgery involves securing a layer of amniotic membrane (AM) to the eyelid margins as a patch to cover the entire ocular surface. However, there is debate about the severity of an ocular burn that may benefit from AMT and uncertainty of whether AMT improves outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of AMT with medical therapy in the first seven days after an ocular surface burn, compared to medical therapy alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 September 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared an AMT applied in the first seven days following an ocular surface burn in addition to medical therapy with medical therapy alone. The outcome measures were failure of re-epithelialisation by day 21 post injury, visual acuity at final follow-up, corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon, time to re-epithelialisation and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed the included studies for risk of bias and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial investigators for missing information. We summarised data using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We analysed two RCTs, but excluded individual patients who had been treated outside the acute phase in one of the studies (data provided by study authors). In total, 36 moderate burns from one RCT and 92 severe burns from two RCTs were evaluated separately. For both categories, the certainty of the evidence was downgraded principally as a result of high risks of performance and detection biases, and because of imprecision indicated by very wide confidence intervals. In addition, follow-up was insufficiently frequent to calculate time-to-epithelialisation precisely. Moderate severity ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification II-III) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 0.18 (0.02 to 1.31), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.32 lower (0.55 to 0.09 lower) in the treatment group (i.e. better), suggesting a possible benefit of AMT. The GRADE assessment for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (very wide confidence intervals including no effect). The GRADE assessment for visual acuity at final follow-up was downgraded to low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (optimal information size not met). The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.56; 0.21 to 1.48), symblepharon (RR 0.41; 0.02 to 9.48) and time-to-epithelialisation (13 days lower; 26.30 lower to 0.30 higher) suggest possible benefit of AMT, but the wide confidence intervals indicate that both harm and benefit are possible. GRADE assessments for these outcomes were once again downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision. Since adverse effects are rare, the small sample would have fewer occurrences of rare but potentially important adverse effects. The GRADE assessment for adverse effects was therefore considered to be low.  Severe ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification IV) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 1.03 (0.94 to 1.12), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.01 higher (0.29 lower to 0.31 higher) in the treatment group (i.e, worse), indicating no benefit of AMT. GRADE assessments for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 and final outcomes were downgraded to low. The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.84; 0.66 to 1.06), symblepharon (RR 0.89; 0.56 to 1.42) and time-to-epithelialisation (1.66 days lower; 11.09 lower to 7.77 higher) may include both benefit and harm. GRADE assessments for corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon and time-to-epithelialisation were downgraded to low due to risk of bias and imprecision. For adverse effects, the GRADE assessment was downgraded to low, reflecting the small sample sizes in the RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is uncertain evidence to support the treatment of moderate acute ocular surface burns with AMT in addition to standard medical therapy as a means of preventing failure of epithelialisation by day 21, improving visual outcome and reducing corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon formation and time-to-epithelialisation. For severe burns, the available evidence does not indicate any significant benefit of treatment with AMT.

The ocular surface chemical burns

Ocular chemical burns are common and serious ocular emergencies that require immediate and intensive evaluation and care. The victims of such incidents are usually young, and therefore loss of vision and disfigurement could dramatically affect their lives. The clinical course can be divided into immediate, acute, early, and late reparative phases. The degree of limbal, corneal, and conjunctival involvement at the time of injury is critically associated with prognosis. The treatment starts with simple but vision saving steps and is continued with complicated surgical procedures later in the course of the disease. The goal of treatment is to restore the normal ocular surface anatomy and function. Limbal stem cell transplantation, amniotic membrane transplantation, and ultimately keratoprosthesis may be indicated depending on the patients' needs.

Amniotic membrane transplantation for acute ocular burns

BACKGROUND

Ocular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or by direct heat. Amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) performed in the acute phase (day 0 to day 7) of an ocular surface burn is reported to relieve pain, accelerate healing and reduce scarring and blood vessel formation. The surgery involves applying a patch of amniotic membrane (AM) over the entire ocular surface up to the eyelid margins.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of AMT on the eyes of people having suffered acute ocular surface burns.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to June 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 11 June 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of medical therapy and AMT applied in the first seven days after an ocular surface burn compared to medical therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial investigators for missing information. We summarised data using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT of 100 participants with ocular burns that were randomised to treatment with AMT and medical therapy or medical therapy alone. A subset of patients (n = 68) who were treated within the first seven days of the injury met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The remaining 32 eyes were excluded. The included subset consisted of 36 moderate (Dua classification II-III) and 32 severe (Dua classification IV-VI) ocular burns from alkali, acid and thermal injuries. In the moderate category, 13/20 control eyes and 14/16 treatment eyes had complete epithelialisation by 21 days. The RR of failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 0.18 in the treatment group (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.31; P = 0.09). Mean LogMAR final visual acuities were 0.06 (standard deviation (SD) 0.10) in the treatment group and 0.38 (SD 0.52) in the control group, representing a MD of -0.32 (95% CI -0.05 to -0.59). In the severe category, 1/17 treatment and 1/15 control eyes were epithelialised by day 21. The RR of failure of epithelialisation in the treatment group was 1.01 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; P = 0.93). Final visual acuity was 1.77 (SD 1.31) in the treated eyes and 1.64 (SD 1.48) in the control group (MD 0.13; 95% CI -0.88 to 1.14). The risks of performance and detection biases were high, because treating personnel and outcome assessors could not be masked to treatment. There was also a high risk of bias in the visual outcomes of the moderate category, since mean visual acuity was significantly worse at presentation in the control eyes. This reduced confidence in the study findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Conclusive evidence supporting the treatment of acute ocular surface burns with AMT is lacking. Heterogeneity of disease presentation, variations in treatment, undefined criteria for treatment success and failure, and non-uniform outcome measures are some of the factors complicating the search for clear evidence regarding this treatment.