Comparison of 2 Office-Based Sutureless Amniotic Membrane Transplantation Modalities for Ocular Surface Disorders
Purpose
To compare the indications for and rates of success of ProKera (Biotissue, Inc., Dorel, FL) to AmbioDisk (IOP Ophthalmics, Costa Mesa, CA) for multiple etiologies of persistent corneal epithelial defects.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was performed of all consecutive patients who received Original ProKera or AmbioDisk for a variety of ocular surface disorders between August 2010 and August 2014. Success of epithelial healing was categorized as completely or partially healed, or total failure. In addition to demographic parameters, data collected included indication for placement, side effects, success of epithelial healing, course of disease, and final outcomes. A student’s T-test was used to identify statistical significance.
Results
A total of 33 patients with 40 eyes (22 male), mean age of 71 (range 25-93) who received ProKera (28 eyes) or AmbioDisk (12 eyes) were included in the study. Indications for insertion were similar for ProKera and AmbioDisk including: non-healing infectious ulcers (28.6 %, 16.7%), neurotrophic keratopathy (28.6%, 25%), persistent epithelial defect in a corneal transplant ( 11%, 41.7%), and others (32.1%, 16.7%). Rates of success were similar (p = 0.82) with complete success in ProKera versus AmbioDisk in 28.6% and 41.7%, partial success in 57.1% and 50%, and failure in 14.3% and 8.3%, respectively.
Conclusion
In this study, ProKera and AmbioDisk were used for similar indications and there were no statistically significant differences for the total or partial success of either treatment modality. Further prospective, larger studies are warranted to compare the cost efficacy of each modality.