Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Evaluation of the factors that influence surgical outcome in conjunctival-limbal allograft transplantation

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the surgical results and the variables affecting the outcomes in conjunctival-limbal allograft transplantation (CLAL).

Methods

Patients who underwent CLAL for limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) between 2007 and 2019 were included in the study. LSCD staging was performed according to the staging system developed by the ‘Limbal Stem Cell Working Group’. Stage 1C and higher stage LSCD patients were included in the study. ‘Successful surgical outcome’ was defined as improvement in LSCD stage at 1 year postoperatively.

Results

A total of 19 eyes of 19 LSCD patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 40.21 ± 14.65 (6–65) years, and the male/female ratio was 12/7. CLAL was performed in 9 (47.3%) patients with Stage 2B, 9 (47.3%) patients with Stage 3 and 1 (5.4%) with Stage 1C. LSCD aetiology; chemical injury (12), vernal keratoconjunctivitis (2), aniridia (1), corneal degeneration (1), and unknown (3). Surgery was successful in 52.6% of cases. Surgical success was associated with lower LSCD stage (p = 0.04). Lower grades of chemical injury at presentation and a longer time interval between injury and CLAL were associated with higher surgical success (p = 0.001; p = 0.001). The mean postoperative follow-up time was 50.77 ± 29.46 (6–98) months.

Conclusions

Despite graft rejection and long-term use of immunosuppressants, CLAL is still one of the most preferred techniques in the treatment of bilateral LSCD. Preoperative LSCD stage and degree of chemical burn are important factors affecting the surgical outcome. Also, CLAL surgery should not be rushed and should be performed when inflammation has subsided.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The relationship between time to surgery after chemical injury and surgical success.
Fig. 2: Anterior segment images of the patients.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Dziasko MA, Daniels JT. Anatomical features and cell-cell interactions in the human limbal epithelial stem cell niche. Ocul Surf. 2016;14:322–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Biber JM. Classification of ocular surface disease. In: Holland EJ, Mannis MJ, Lee WB, eds. Ocular surface disease: cornea, conjunctiva and tear film. New York, NY: Elsevier; 2013:35–44.

  3. Lindquist TD. Conjunctivitis: an overview and classification. In: Krachmer JH, Mannis MJ, Holland EJ, eds. Cornea. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier; 2005:509–20.

  4. Liang L, Sheha H, Tseng SC. Long-term outcomes of keratolimbal allograft for total limbal stem cell deficiency using combined immunosuppressive agents and correction of ocular surface deficits. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1428–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Javadi MA, Jafarinasab MR, Feizi S, Negahban K. Management of mustard gas induced limbal stem cell deficiency and keratitis. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1272–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Movahedan A, Cheung AY, Eslani M, Mogilishetty G, Govil A, Holland EJ. Long-term outcomes of ocular surface stem cell allograft transplantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;184:97–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Holland EJ. Epithelial transplantation for the management of severe ocular surface disease. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1996;94:677–743.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Tsai RJ, Tseng SC. Human allograft limbal transplantation for corneal surface reconstruction. Cornea. 1994;13:389–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tsubota K, Toda I, Saito H, Shinozaki N, Shimazaki J. Reconstruction of the corneal epithelium by limbal allograft transplantation for severe ocular surface disorders. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:1486–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Titiyal JS, Sharma N, Agarwal AK, Prakash G, Tandon R, Vajpayee R. Live related versus cadaveric limbal allograft in limbal stem cell deficiency. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2015;23:232–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Holland EJ, Mogilishetty G, Skeens HM, Hair DB, Neff KD, Biber JM, et al. Systemic immunosuppression in ocular surface stem cell transplantation: results of a 10-year experience. Cornea. 2012;31:655–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Solomon A, Ellies P, Anderson DF, Touhami A, Grueterich M, Espana EM, et al. Long-term outcome of keratolimbal allograft with or without penetrating keratoplasty for total limbal stem cell deficiency. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1159–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dua HS, King AJ, Joseph A. A new classification of ocular surface burns. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:1379–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Deng SX, Borderie V, Chan CC, Dana R, Figueiredo FC, Gomes JAP, et al. Global consensus on definition, classification, diagnosis, and staging of limbal stem cell deficiency. Cornea. 2019;38:364–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Figueiredo GS, Salvador-Culla B, Baylis OJ, Mudhar HS, Lako M, Figueiredo FC. Outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty following autologous cultivated limbal epithelial stem cell transplantation. Stem Cells. 2018;36:925–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shanbhag SS, Nikpoor N, Rao Donthineni P, Singh V, Chodosh J, Basu S. Autologous limbal stem cell transplantation: a systematic review of clinical outcomes with different surgical techniques. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104:247–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lal I, Gupta N, Purushotham J, Sangwan V. Limbal stem cell deficiency: current management. J Clin Ophthalmol Res. 2016;4:3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sacchetti M, Rama P, Bruscolini A, Lambiase A. limbal stem cell transplantation: clinical results, limits, and perspectives. Stem Cells Int. 2018; 2018:8086269. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8086269.

  19. Holland EJ. Management of limbal stem cell deficiency: a historical perspective, past, present, and future. Cornea. 2015;34:S9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Haagdorens M, Van Acker SI, Van Gerwen V, Ni Dhubhghaill S, Koppen C, Tassignon MJ, et al. Limbal stem cell deficiency: current treatment options and emerging therapies. Stem Cells Int. 2016;2016:9798374. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9798374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Le Q, Chauhan T, Yung M, Tseng CH, Deng SX. Outcomes of limbal stem cell transplant: a meta-analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138:660–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cheng J, Zhai H, Wang J, Duan H, Zhou Q. Long-term outcome of allogeneic cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation for symblepharon caused by severe ocular burns. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Deng SX, Kruse F, Gomes JAP, Chan CC, Daya S, Dana R, et al. Global consensus on the management of limbal stem cell deficiency. J Cornea Extern Dis. 2020;39:1291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bizrah M, Yusuf A, Ahmad S. An update on chemical eye burns. Eye. 2019;33:1362–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ghosh S, Salvador-Culla B, Kotagiri A, Pushpoth S, Tey A, Johnson ZK, et al. Acute chemical eye injury and limbal stem cell deficiency—a prospective study in the United Kingdom. Cornea. 2019;38:8–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Korkmaz I, Palamar M, Egrilmez S, Gurdal M, Yagci A, Barut Selver O. Evaluation of limbal stem cell transplant success in ocular chemical injury. Exp Clin Transplant. 2022;10. 6002/ect.2021.0393. https://doi.org/10.6002/ect.2021.0393.

  27. Unlu BH, Utine CA, Durak I. Simple limbal epithelial transplantation in limbal stem cell deficiency after chemical eye injury. Eur Eye Res. 2021;1:47–52. https://doi.org/10.14744/eer.2021.81300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ozek D, Karaca EE, Kemer OE. Simple limbal epithelial transplantation method in the treatment of unilateral limbal stem cell deficiency due to chemical burn. Eur Eye Res. 2021;1:31–36. https://doi.org/10.14744/eer.2021.32032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cheung AY, Sarnicola E, Govil A, Holland EJ. Combined conjunctival limbal autografts and living-related conjunctival limbal allografts for severe unilateral ocular surface failure, 2017;36:1570–5.

  30. Baradaran-Rafii A, Eslani M, Djalillian AR. Complications of keratolimbal allograft surgery. Cornea. 2013;32:561–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shimazaki J, Shimmura S, Tsubota K. Donor source affects the outcome of ocular surface reconstruction in chemical or thermal burns of the cornea. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:38–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Daya SM, Ilari FA. Living related conjunctival limbal allograft for the treatment of stem cell deficiency. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:126–33. discussion 133-134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nassiri N, Pandya HK, Djalilian AR. Limbal allograft transplantation using fibrin glue. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129:218–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Behaegel J, Koppen C, Gerwen V, Tassignon MJ, Dhubhghaill SN. Corneal epithelial restoration after penetrating keratoplasty in repeated failed cultivated limbal stem cell grafts. J EuCornea. 2019;2:6–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ozer MD, Altinkurt E, Alparslan N. The long-term surgical outcomes of conjunctival-limbal autograft procedure with or without penetrating keratoplasty in eyes with unilateral limbal stem cell deficiency. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2020;10:22–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MK, IK and OBS were responsible for the conception or design of the work. MK and IK were responsible for the data collection. MK, IK and MPO were responsible for the data analysis, MPO, SE, and AY for interpretation. MK, IK and MPO were responsible for drafting the article. MPO, SE, AY and OBS were responsible for the critical revision of the article. All authors were responsible for the final approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ozlem Barut Selver.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kasikci, M., Korkmaz, I., Palamar, M. et al. Evaluation of the factors that influence surgical outcome in conjunctival-limbal allograft transplantation. Eye (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02314-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02314-w

Search

Quick links