Smith David W, Lee Chang-Joon, Gardiner Bruce S
Faculty of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Faculty of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia; College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Prog Retin Eye Res. 2020 Feb 6:100845. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2020.100845.
When analyzing vitreal drug delivery, or the pharmacological effects of drugs on intraocular pressure, or when interpreting outflow facility measurements, it is generally accepted that the fluid in the vitreous humor is stagnant. It is accepted that for all practical purposes, the aqueous fluid exits the eye via anterior pathways only, and so there is negligible if any posteriorly directed flow of aqueous through the vitreous humor. This assumption is largely based on the interpretation of experimental data from key sources including Maurice (1957), Moseley (1984), Gaul and Brubaker (1986), Maurice (1987) and Araie et al. (1991). However, there is strong independent evidence suggesting there is a substantial fluid flow across the retinal pigment epithelium from key sources including Cantrill and Pederson (1984), Chihara and Nao-i, Tsuboi (1985), Dahrouj et al. (2014), Smith and Gardiner (2017) and Smith et al. (2019). The conflicting evidence creates a conundrum-how can both interpretations be true? This leads us to re-evaluate the evidence. We demonstrate that the data believed to be supporting no aqueous flow through the vitreous are in fact compatible with a significant normal aqueous flow. We identify strong and independent lines of evidence supporting fluid flow across the RPE, including our new outflow model for the eye. On balance it appears the current evidence favors the view that there is normally a significant aqueous flow across the RPE in vivo. This finding suggests that past and future analyses of outflow facility, interpretations of some drug distributions and the interpretation of some drug effects on eye tissues, may need to be revised.
在分析玻璃体内药物递送、药物对眼压的药理作用或解释房水流畅度测量结果时,人们普遍认为玻璃体内的液体是停滞的。人们认为,在所有实际应用中,房水仅通过前部途径离开眼睛,因此,如果有任何房水通过玻璃体向后流动,其流量也可忽略不计。这一假设主要基于对包括莫里斯(1957年)、莫斯利(1984年)、高尔和布鲁贝克(1986年)、莫里斯(1987年)以及荒井等人(1991年)等关键资料来源的实验数据的解读。然而,有强有力的独立证据表明,包括坎特里尔和佩德森(1984年)、千原和直井、津部(1985年)、达鲁吉等人(2014年)、史密斯和加德纳(2017年)以及史密斯等人(2019年)等关键资料来源显示,存在大量液体穿过视网膜色素上皮。相互矛盾的证据造成了一个难题——两种解释怎么可能都正确呢?这促使我们重新评估这些证据。我们证明,那些被认为支持房水不通过玻璃体流动的数据,实际上与显著的正常房水流动是相符的。我们确定了支持液体穿过视网膜色素上皮流动的强有力的独立证据线,包括我们新的眼睛房水流出模型。总体而言,目前的证据似乎支持这样一种观点,即正常情况下在体内存在大量房水穿过视网膜色素上皮。这一发现表明,过去和未来对房水流畅度的分析、对某些药物分布的解读以及对某些药物对眼组织作用的解读,可能都需要修订。