Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Vet. Sci.
Sec. Comparative and Clinical Medicine
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1415658

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON CORNEAL EPITHELIUM HEALING: EFFECTS OF CROSSLINKED HYALURONIC ACID AND AMNIOTIC MEMBRANE EXTRACT EYE DROPS IN RATS

Provisionally accepted
Lenara Gonçalves e Souza Lenara Gonçalves e Souza 1*Claudia Sacaki Claudia Sacaki 2*Matheus Vilardo Lóes Moreira Matheus Vilardo Lóes Moreira 3*Eduardo Perlmann Eduardo Perlmann 4*Thacyana B. Guimarães Lopes Thacyana B. Guimarães Lopes 5*Enio Ferreira Enio Ferreira 5Fabiano Montiani-Ferreira Fabiano Montiani-Ferreira 1*
  • 1 Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
  • 2 Pelé Pequeno Príncipe Research Institute, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
  • 3 Laboratory of Veterinary Pathology, MVL, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
  • 4 Vetmasters Veterinary Hospital, São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
  • 5 Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Introduction: Corneal ulcer is a common lesion in human and veterinary medicine. Few investigations have evaluated the efficacy of cross-linked hyaluronic acid (X-HA) eye drops on corneal wound healing. In addition, this is the first study to demonstrate and compare the efficacy amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED) to X-HA for corneal wound healing in rats. Material and Methods: Fifteen male Wistar rats (30 eyes) were used for this study. Ten eyes were treated with X-HA, AMEED, or 0.9% saline. After general and topical anesthesia, a superficial corneal ulcer was created using a corneal trephine. The defect was further polished with a diamond burr. Three groups of ten eyes each were treated with either one drop of 0.75% X-HA or AMEED or 0.9% saline (control), instilled every 12 hours for 72 hours. Median epithelial defect area (MEDA), % of the total corneal surface, was measured at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 hours. Re-epithelization time scores also were evaluated. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the median times for re-epithelization and histopathologic scores between groups. Friedman test (for paired data) was employed to compare results from the serial analysis of MEDA and vascularization scores between groups. Results: MEDA was not significantly different between X-HA and AMEED. MEDA was significantly smaller in the X-HA group, compared to control group at 36h and 48 hours: 2.73 IQR 5.52% x 9.95 IQR 9.10%, P=0.024 and 0.00 IQR 0.26% x 6.30 IQR 8.54%, P=0.030, respectively. An overall significantly lower time for re-epithelization was observed in the group treated with X-HA (3.00 IQR 3.00) compared to AMEED (6.5 IQR 3.00) and control (7.00 IQR 1.00), P=0.035. Vascularization, hydropic degeneration, and epithelial-stromal separation were significantly less observed in samples treated with X-HA group, compared to AMEED and saline-treated samples. Significantly more corneal epithelium cells were labelled for caspase 3 in samples from AMEED and saline-treated groups compared to X-HA. Discussion: Topical X-HA has been shown to accelerate corneal epithelial healing. AMEED did not decrease corneal reepithelialization time. X-HA may also potentially be used as an adjunct therapy for treating corneal ulcers in clinical situations.

    Keywords: cross-linked hyaluronic acid hydrogel, Amniotic membrane extract, Eye drops, Epithelial healing, rat, histopathology

    Received: 12 Apr 2024; Accepted: 28 Jun 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Gonçalves e Souza, Sacaki, Vilardo Lóes Moreira, Perlmann, Guimarães Lopes, Ferreira and Montiani-Ferreira. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Lenara Gonçalves e Souza, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
    Claudia Sacaki, Pelé Pequeno Príncipe Research Institute, Curitiba, 1070, Paraná, Brazil
    Matheus Vilardo Lóes Moreira, Laboratory of Veterinary Pathology, MVL, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
    Eduardo Perlmann, Vetmasters Veterinary Hospital, São Paulo, 01234-001, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
    Thacyana B. Guimarães Lopes, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 31270-901, Minas Gerais, Brazil
    Fabiano Montiani-Ferreira, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.