1
|
Trujillo-de Santiago G, Sharifi R, Yue K, Sani ES, Kashaf SS, Alvarez MM, Leijten J, Khademhosseini A, Dana R, Annabi N. Ocular adhesives: Design, chemistry, crosslinking mechanisms, and applications. Biomaterials 2019; 197:345-367. [PMID: 30690421 PMCID: PMC6687460 DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2018] [Revised: 12/16/2018] [Accepted: 01/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Closure of ocular wounds after an accident or surgery is typically performed by suturing, which is associated with numerous potential complications, including suture breakage, inflammation, secondary neovascularization, erosion to the surface and secondary infection, and astigmatism; for example, more than half of post-corneal transplant infections are due to suture related complications. Tissue adhesives provide promising substitutes for sutures in ophthalmic surgery. Ocular adhesives are not only intended to address the shortcomings of sutures, but also designed to be easy to use, and can potentially minimize post-operative complications. Herein, recent progress in the design, synthesis, and application of ocular adhesives, along with their advantages, limitations, and potential are discussed. This review covers two main classes of ocular adhesives: (1) synthetic adhesives based on cyanoacrylates, polyethylene glycol (PEG), and other synthetic polymers, and (2) adhesives based on naturally derived polymers, such as proteins and polysaccharides. In addition, different technologies to cover and protect ocular wounds such as contact bandage lenses, contact lenses coupled with novel technologies, and decellularized corneas are discussed. Continued advances in this area can help improve both patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grissel Trujillo-de Santiago
- Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, MA, USA; Biomaterials Innovation Research Center, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02139, MA, USA; Microsystems Technologies Laboratories, MIT, Cambridge, 02139, MA, USA; Centro de Biotecnología-FEMSA, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, NL 64849, Mexico
| | - Roholah Sharifi
- Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, MA, USA; Biomaterials Innovation Research Center, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02139, MA, USA
| | - Kan Yue
- Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, MA, USA; Biomaterials Innovation Research Center, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02139, MA, USA
| | - Ehsan Shrizaei Sani
- Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department, University of California - Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
| | - Sara Saheb Kashaf
- Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, MA, USA; Biomaterials Innovation Research Center, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02139, MA, USA
| | - Mario Moisés Alvarez
- Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, MA, USA; Biomaterials Innovation Research Center, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02139, MA, USA; Microsystems Technologies Laboratories, MIT, Cambridge, 02139, MA, USA; Centro de Biotecnología-FEMSA, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, NL 64849, Mexico
| | - Jeroen Leijten
- Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, MA, USA; Biomaterials Innovation Research Center, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02139, MA, USA; Department of Developmental BioEngineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Ali Khademhosseini
- Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, MA, USA; Biomaterials Innovation Research Center, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02139, MA, USA; Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department, University of California - Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; Department of Bioengineering, University of California - Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; Center for Minimally Invasive Therapeutics (C-MIT), California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI), University of California - Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California - Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
| | - Reza Dana
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Schepens Eye Research Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA
| | - Nasim Annabi
- Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, MA, USA; Biomaterials Innovation Research Center, Division of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02139, MA, USA; Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department, University of California - Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; Center for Minimally Invasive Therapeutics (C-MIT), California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI), University of California - Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe methods and outcomes for repair of bleb-related complications of trabeculectomy surgery. DESIGN Retrospective, consecutive, noncomparative case series. PARTICIPANTS Thirty-one persons having bleb revision by two surgeons at the Wilmer Institute from 1994 to the present. INTERVENTION One of two types of revision surgery was performed: bleb reduction to decrease symptoms from large blebs or bleb repair to improve hypotony, using conjunctival rotation flap or free conjunctival autograft. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), reported symptoms, complications, and number of glaucoma medications at the final visit. RESULTS The mean time from trabeculectomy to bleb revision was 4.4 years. Bleb reduction was performed because of symptomatic, high blebs in 11 eyes of 11 persons. Bleb repair was performed to end bleb leakage in 13 eyes of 13 persons and to increase IOP in 8 eyes of 7 persons with hypotony. Median visual acuity improved from 20/50 before revision to 20/30 at most recent follow-up. Mean IOP increased after treatment from 7.7+/-4.9 to 12.4+/-4.0 mmHg (P < 0.001). Symptoms that caused the revision surgery were eliminated in all cases. None of these eyes has lost IOP control, none has required repeat trabeculectomy, and only 2 of the 32 (6%) require topical glaucoma medication. More than one revision procedure was required in 8 of 32 (25%) eyes. CONCLUSIONS Surgical bleb revisions for complications after trabeculectomy surgery are safe and effective. Bleb reduction for large, symptomatic blebs or bleb repair for leaking blebs and hypotony did not lead to loss of IOP control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S E La Borwit
- Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Leahey AB, Gottsch JD, Stark WJ. Clinical experience with N-butyl cyanoacrylate (Nexacryl) tissue adhesive. Ophthalmology 1993; 100:173-80. [PMID: 8437823 DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(93)31674-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 111] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To investigate the indications, outcomes, and complications of N-butyl cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive for ocular clinical use. This tissue adhesive is under investigation by the Food and Drug Administration. METHODS N-butyl cyanoacrylate was used as an investigational device on 44 patients at the authors' institution over a 2-year period. The charts of these patients were reviewed. RESULTS The indications for glue application included corneal perforation (19 eyes), descemetoceles (9 eyes), leaking filtering blebs (6 eyes), stromal thinning (5 eyes), wound leaks (4 eyes), and exposure keratopathy (1 eye). A bandage contact lens was used over the dried tissue adhesive in 38 of the 44 eyes. Length of glue adherence ranged from 1 to 660 days (mean, 72 days). Outcome was penetrating keratoplasty (19 eyes), no further intervention (14 eyes), enucleation (4 eyes), surgical revision of a filter (2 eyes), scleral patch graft (1 eye), conjunctival transplant (1 eye), failed tarsorrhaphy (1 eye), suturing of wound (1 eye), and a lamellar graft (1 eye). Vision improved in 52% (23/44) of eyes. CONCLUSION This tissue adhesive may soon be available to all ophthalmologists, and the authors' experience demonstrates that it is an effective method of temporary or permanent closure of an impending or frank perforation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A B Leahey
- Wilmer Ophthalmologic Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21287-9135
| | | | | |
Collapse
|