Amniotic membrane transplantation for acute ocular burns.

BACKGROUND

Ocular surface burns can be caused by chemicals (alkalis and acids) or direct heat. One effect of the burn is damage to the limbal epithelial stem cells of the ocular surface with delayed re-epithelialisation, stem cell failure, and conjunctivalisation of the cornea. Amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) performed in the acute phase (day 0 to day 7) following an ocular surface burn is claimed to reduce pain and accelerate healing. The surgery involves securing a layer of amniotic membrane (AM) to the eyelid margins as a patch to cover the entire ocular surface. However, there is debate about the severity of an ocular burn that may benefit from AMT and uncertainty of whether AMT improves outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of AMT with medical therapy in the first seven days after an ocular surface burn, compared to medical therapy alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 September 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared an AMT applied in the first seven days following an ocular surface burn in addition to medical therapy with medical therapy alone. The outcome measures were failure of re-epithelialisation by day 21 post injury, visual acuity at final follow-up, corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon, time to re-epithelialisation and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed the included studies for risk of bias and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial investigators for missing information. We summarised data using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We analysed two RCTs, but excluded individual patients who had been treated outside the acute phase in one of the studies (data provided by study authors). In total, 36 moderate burns from one RCT and 92 severe burns from two RCTs were evaluated separately. For both categories, the certainty of the evidence was downgraded principally as a result of high risks of performance and detection biases, and because of imprecision indicated by very wide confidence intervals. In addition, follow-up was insufficiently frequent to calculate time-to-epithelialisation precisely. Moderate severity ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification II-III) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 0.18 (0.02 to 1.31), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.32 lower (0.55 to 0.09 lower) in the treatment group (i.e. better), suggesting a possible benefit of AMT. The GRADE assessment for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (very wide confidence intervals including no effect). The GRADE assessment for visual acuity at final follow-up was downgraded to low due to the risk of bias and imprecision (optimal information size not met). The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.56; 0.21 to 1.48), symblepharon (RR 0.41; 0.02 to 9.48) and time-to-epithelialisation (13 days lower; 26.30 lower to 0.30 higher) suggest possible benefit of AMT, but the wide confidence intervals indicate that both harm and benefit are possible. GRADE assessments for these outcomes were once again downgraded to very low due to the risk of bias and imprecision. Since adverse effects are rare, the small sample would have fewer occurrences of rare but potentially important adverse effects. The GRADE assessment for adverse effects was therefore considered to be low.  Severe ocular burns (Roper-Hall classification IV) The relative risk of AMT on failure of epithelialisation by day 21 was 1.03 (0.94 to 1.12), and LogMAR visual acuity was 0.01 higher (0.29 lower to 0.31 higher) in the treatment group (i.e, worse), indicating no benefit of AMT. GRADE assessments for failure of epithelialisation by day 21 and final outcomes were downgraded to low. The relative effects of AMT on corneal neovascularisation (RR 0.84; 0.66 to 1.06), symblepharon (RR 0.89; 0.56 to 1.42) and time-to-epithelialisation (1.66 days lower; 11.09 lower to 7.77 higher) may include both benefit and harm. GRADE assessments for corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon and time-to-epithelialisation were downgraded to low due to risk of bias and imprecision. For adverse effects, the GRADE assessment was downgraded to low, reflecting the small sample sizes in the RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertain evidence to support the treatment of moderate acute ocular surface burns with AMT in addition to standard medical therapy as a means of preventing failure of epithelialisation by day 21, improving visual outcome and reducing corneal neovascularisation, symblepharon formation and time-to-epithelialisation. For severe burns, the available evidence does not indicate any significant benefit of treatment with AMT.