Histopathologic Evaluation of Polymer Supports for Pintucci-type Keratoprostheses: An Animal Study

Purpose: To report histopathological findings for different types of polymers proposed as support for a Pintucci-type keratoprosthesis. Methods: Six polymers, including three types of polyesters ( # 1-3), one type of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, #...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Saeed Rahmani, Mozhgan Rezaei Kanavi, Mohammad Ali Javadi
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Knowledge E 2019-07-01
Series:Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v14i3.4779
_version_ 1811192887186030592
author Saeed Rahmani
Mozhgan Rezaei Kanavi
Mohammad Ali Javadi
author_facet Saeed Rahmani
Mozhgan Rezaei Kanavi
Mohammad Ali Javadi
author_sort Saeed Rahmani
collection DOAJ
description Purpose: To report histopathological findings for different types of polymers proposed as support for a Pintucci-type keratoprosthesis. Methods: Six polymers, including three types of polyesters ( # 1-3), one type of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, # 4), polyethylene ( # 5), and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE, # 6) were evaluated. Four samples of each material were placed under the orbicularis oculi muscles of 12 rabbits. After five weeks, the samples were removed and evaluated histopathologically. Fibrovascular tissue ingrowths were investigated in terms of tissue penetration depth into the materials (graded as none, mild, moderate, and intense) and fibrovascular ingrowth area at the ultimate level of tissue penetrance. ImageJ software was used to calculate fibrovascular tissue area between the material fibers, and the mean area values were compared between the materials. Results: Polyester materials # 1 and # 3 demonstrated intense fibrovascular tissue penetration with a large fibrovascular ingrowth area; no overt tissue ingrowth was observed into material #6. The mean area of penetrated fibrovascular tissues was significantly different between materials ( P < 0.001). Materials # 2, # 4, and # 5 showed moderate fibrovascular tissue ingrowth and the area of presented fibrovascular tissue at the paracentral parts of material # 4 was significantly smaller than that of materials # 1 ( P = 0.02) and # 3 ( P = 0.01). Conclusion: Two polyester materials that had relatively large pore sizes demonstrated a deep and large area of fibrovascular ingrowth. Given that material #3 is thicker and more consistent than material # 1, the former can be used as the appropriate material for supporting the Pintucci-type keratoprosthesis.
first_indexed 2024-04-11T23:58:28Z
format Article
id doaj.art-694916329c3641148f576839e6e41ec8
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2008-322X
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-11T23:58:28Z
publishDate 2019-07-01
publisher Knowledge E
record_format Article
series Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research
spelling doaj.art-694916329c3641148f576839e6e41ec82022-12-22T03:56:17ZengKnowledge EJournal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research2008-322X2019-07-01141810.18502/jovr.v14i3.4779jovr.v14i3.4779Histopathologic Evaluation of Polymer Supports for Pintucci-type Keratoprostheses: An Animal StudySaeed RahmaniMozhgan Rezaei KanaviMohammad Ali JavadiPurpose: To report histopathological findings for different types of polymers proposed as support for a Pintucci-type keratoprosthesis. Methods: Six polymers, including three types of polyesters ( # 1-3), one type of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, # 4), polyethylene ( # 5), and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE, # 6) were evaluated. Four samples of each material were placed under the orbicularis oculi muscles of 12 rabbits. After five weeks, the samples were removed and evaluated histopathologically. Fibrovascular tissue ingrowths were investigated in terms of tissue penetration depth into the materials (graded as none, mild, moderate, and intense) and fibrovascular ingrowth area at the ultimate level of tissue penetrance. ImageJ software was used to calculate fibrovascular tissue area between the material fibers, and the mean area values were compared between the materials. Results: Polyester materials # 1 and # 3 demonstrated intense fibrovascular tissue penetration with a large fibrovascular ingrowth area; no overt tissue ingrowth was observed into material #6. The mean area of penetrated fibrovascular tissues was significantly different between materials ( P < 0.001). Materials # 2, # 4, and # 5 showed moderate fibrovascular tissue ingrowth and the area of presented fibrovascular tissue at the paracentral parts of material # 4 was significantly smaller than that of materials # 1 ( P = 0.02) and # 3 ( P = 0.01). Conclusion: Two polyester materials that had relatively large pore sizes demonstrated a deep and large area of fibrovascular ingrowth. Given that material #3 is thicker and more consistent than material # 1, the former can be used as the appropriate material for supporting the Pintucci-type keratoprosthesis.https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v14i3.4779Fibrovascular Tissue IngrowthKeratoprosthesisPintucciPolymer
spellingShingle Saeed Rahmani
Mozhgan Rezaei Kanavi
Mohammad Ali Javadi
Histopathologic Evaluation of Polymer Supports for Pintucci-type Keratoprostheses: An Animal Study
Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research
Fibrovascular Tissue Ingrowth
Keratoprosthesis
Pintucci
Polymer
title Histopathologic Evaluation of Polymer Supports for Pintucci-type Keratoprostheses: An Animal Study
title_full Histopathologic Evaluation of Polymer Supports for Pintucci-type Keratoprostheses: An Animal Study
title_fullStr Histopathologic Evaluation of Polymer Supports for Pintucci-type Keratoprostheses: An Animal Study
title_full_unstemmed Histopathologic Evaluation of Polymer Supports for Pintucci-type Keratoprostheses: An Animal Study
title_short Histopathologic Evaluation of Polymer Supports for Pintucci-type Keratoprostheses: An Animal Study
title_sort histopathologic evaluation of polymer supports for pintucci type keratoprostheses an animal study
topic Fibrovascular Tissue Ingrowth
Keratoprosthesis
Pintucci
Polymer
url https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v14i3.4779
work_keys_str_mv AT saeedrahmani histopathologicevaluationofpolymersupportsforpintuccitypekeratoprosthesesananimalstudy
AT mozhganrezaeikanavi histopathologicevaluationofpolymersupportsforpintuccitypekeratoprosthesesananimalstudy
AT mohammadalijavadi histopathologicevaluationofpolymersupportsforpintuccitypekeratoprosthesesananimalstudy