Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study compared the effects of implanting two interpenetrating polymer networks (IPNs) into rabbit corneas. The first (Implant 1) was based on PEG-diacrylate, the second (Implant 2) was based on PEG-diacrylamide. There were inserted into deep stromal pockets created using a manual surgical technique for either 3 or 6 months. The implanted corneas were compared with normal and sham-operated corneas through slit lamp observation, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, in vivo confocal scanning and histological examination. Corneas with Implant 1 (based on PEG-diacrylate) developed diffuse haze, ulcers and opacities within 3 months, while corneas with Implant 2 (based on PEG-diacrylamide) remained clear at 6 months. They also exhibited normal numbers of epithelial cell layers, without any immune cell infiltration, inflammation, oedema or neovascularisation at post-operative 6 month. Morphological studies showed transient epithelial layer thinning over the hydrogel inserted area and elevated keratocyte activity at 3 months; however, the epithelium thickness and keratocyte morphology were improved at 6 months. Implant 2 exhibited superior in vivo biocompatibility and higher optical clarity than Implant 1. PEG-diacrylamide-based IPN hydrogel is therefore a potential candidate for corneal inlays to correct refractive error.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: