Background and Objective: Corneal neurotization is a novel surgical technique used to restore corneal sensation in patients with neurotrophic keratopathy. Neurotrophic keratopathy is a disorder characterized by dysfunction of the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve, which provides sensory innervation to the cornea. Without sensation, the cornea is at risk of infection, ulceration, perforation, and ultimately, vision loss. Corneal neurotization has emerged as an innovative technique to reinnervate anesthetized corneas by transferring a healthy donor nerve to the affected eye around the corneoscleral limbus. As the field of corneal neurotization rapidly grows, there is a need to synthesize the existing body of literature on corneal neurotization and identify important areas for further research. In this review, we will discuss neurotrophic keratopathy and its current management strategies, followed by an overview of corneal neurotization techniques, outcomes, surgical considerations, and future directions. Methods: PubMed and Google Scholar searches were conducted to retrieve and analyze relevant original papers and reviews on neurotrophic keratopathy and corneal neurotization up until April 2022.Key Content and Findings: Currently, numerous techniques for corneal neurotization exist, including direct nerve transfers, as well as indirect neurotization via interposition nerve grafts. So far, corneal neurotization has been shown to be highly successful in restoring corneal sensation, improving visual acuity,and improving corneal epithelial health. To date, there have been no significant differences in outcomes between direct versus indirect neurotization techniques, different donor nerves, or autologous versus allogeneic interposition grafts. However, there is some evidence that corneal neurotization procedures may be more successful in pediatric patients.Conclusions: Corneal neurotization shows great promise in treating neurotrophic corneas and represents the first management option to date that addresses the underlying pathophysiological mechanism of neurotrophic keratopathy by restoring corneal sensation. As the use of corneal neurotization continues to broaden, additional studies will become important to compare techniques in a systematic manner, with larger sample sizes, as well as standardized outcome measures and follow-up time.

Background and Objective: Limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) is characterized by the insufficiency of limbal stem cells to maintain the corneal epithelium. Severe cases of LSCD may be treated with limbal transplantation from healthy autologous or allogeneic limbal tissue. Multiple cell-based therapies have been studied as alternative treatments to improve success rates and minimize immunosuppressive regimens after allogeneic transplants. In this review, we describe the success rates, and complications of different cell-based therapies for LSCD. We also discuss each therapy’s relative strengths and weaknesses, their history in animal and human studies, and their effectiveness compared to traditional transplants.

Methods: PubMed was searched for publications using the terms LSCD, cell-based therapy, cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation (CLET), cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation (COMET),and mesenchymal stem cells from 1989 to August 2022. Inclusion criteria were English language articles.Exclusion criteria were non-English language articles.

Key Content and Findings: current cell-based therapies for LSCD are CLET and non-limbal epithelial cells. Non-limbal epithelial cell methods include COMET, conjunctival epithelial autografts, and mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs). Moreover, several alternative potential sources of non-limbal cells have described, including induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), human embryonic stem cells (hESCs),human dental pulp stem cells, hair follicle bulge-derived epithelial stem cells, amniotic membrane epithelial cells, and human umbilical cord lining epithelial cells.

Conclusions: Cell-based therapies are a promising treatment modality for LSCD. While CLET is currently the only approved cell-based therapy and is only approved in the European Union, more novel methods have also been shown to be effective in human or animal studies thus far. Non-limbal epithelial cells such as COMET are also an alternative treatment to allogeneic transplants especially as a surface stabilizing procedure. iPSCs are currently being studied in early phase trials and have the potential to revolutionize the way LSCD is treated. Lastly, cell-based therapies for restoring the limbal niche such as mesenchymal stem cells have also shown promising results in the first human proof-of-concept study. Several potential sources of non-limbal cells are under investigation.

Although amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) has long been used as an essential surgical technique for ocular surface reconstruction, its role continues to evolve and expand. In the management of numerous ocular surface disorders, ranging from inflammatory to infectious, traumatic to neoplastic, the ability to perform AMT is a valuable addition to the skillset of any ophthalmologist. The purpose of this paper is to provide ophthalmologists with an updated, evidence-based review of the clinical indications for AMT in corneal and conjunctival reconstruction, reviewing its common and even experimental applications known to date. The methods of amniotic membrane preservation, the available commercial amniotic membrane products to date, and future directions for amniotic membrane use, including amniotic membrane extract eye drops (AMEED), are also discussed. It is paramount for ophthalmologists to stay up-to-date on the applications of AMT so as to effectively incorporate this versatile treatment modality into their practice,both in the operating room and in the clinic. By familiarizing the general ophthalmologist with its diverse applications, we hope to motivate general ophthalmologists to incorporate the use of AMT into their clinical practice, or provide guidance on how to recognize when referral to a corneal specialist for amniotic membrane application is prudent.

Background: To compare two swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometers,IOLMaster 700 and ANTERION.

Methods: This is a retrospective study. Biometric measurements of cataract patients performed between March and July 2021 in the Department of Ophthalmology, United Christian Hospital, Hong Kong, were reviewed. Patients scheduled for cataract surgery were measured with both SS-OCT devices on the same day.The following biometry parameters were compared: keratometry (K), total keratometry (TK), axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), white-to-white (WTW) and the predicted intraocular lens (IOL) power to achieve emmetropia. To assess the agreement between the devices, Bland-Altman analysis with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were used.

Results: In total, 92 eyes of 47 subjects were measured with both devices. There were statistically significant differences between the two biometers for most measurements (P<0.05) except for flat K, AL and IOL power when using the right eyes for analysis. For the left eyes, there were statistically significant differences in the measurements from the two biometers in all parameters except for flat and steep K. The ANTERION did not obtain ACD, AL and LT in 2 (2.17%), 1 (1.09%) and 5 cases (5.43%) respectively.

Conclusions: The two biometers showed a clinically acceptable agreement in most parameters. Comparisons showed significant differences in most parameters but not clinically relevant except for the TK and WTW, and these two parameters should not be used interchangeably between the devices.

Background and Objective: Limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) describes the clinical condition when there is dysfunction of the corneal epithelial stem/progenitor cells and the inability to sustain the normal homeostasis of the corneal epithelium. The limbal stem cells are located in a specialized area of the eye called the palisades of Vogt (POV). There have been significant advances in the diagnosis and management of LSCD over the past decade and this review focuses on the pathophysiology of LSCD, its clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and causes.

Methods: Papers regarding LSCD were searched using PubMed to identify the current state of diagnosis and causes of LSCD published through to June 2022. 
Key Content and Findings: LSCD is clinically demonstrated by a whorl-epitheliopathy, loss of the POV, and conjunctivalization of the cornea. The diagnosis of this condition is based on clinical examination and aided by the use of impression cytology, in vivo confocal microscopy, and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (asOCT). There are many causes of LSCD, but those which are most common include chemical injuries, aniridia, contact lens wear, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS).

Conclusions: While this condition is most commonly encountered by corneal specialists, it is important that other ophthalmologists recognize the possibility of LSCD as it may arise in other co-morbid eye conditions.

Background and Objective: Nearly 30 years have passed since limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) was first identified by pioneers and given clinical attention. LSCD remains a difficult disease to treat. It can potentially lead to blinding. At present, understanding of limbal stem cells (LSCs) has deepened and various treatment options for LSCD have been devised. The objective of this review is to summarize basic knowledge of LSCD and current treatment strategies.

Methods: PubMed search was performed to find studies published in English on LSCs and LSCD including original reports and reviews. Literatures published from 1989 to 2022 were reviewed.
Key Content and Findings: LSCs are enigmatic stem cells for which no specific marker has been discovered yet. Although LSCD is not difficult to diagnose, it is still challenging to treat. An important advancement in the treatment of LSCD is the provision of guidelines for selecting systematic surgical treatment according to the patient’s condition. It is also encouraging that stem cell technologies are being actively investigated for their potential usefulness in the treatment of LSCD.

Conclusions: Although various treatment options for LSCD have been developed, it should be kept in mind that the best chance of treatment for LSCD is in the early stage of the disease. Every effort should be made to preserve as many LSCs as possible in the early treatment of LSCD.

Backgrounds: To assess changes in anterior segment biometry during accommodation using a swept source anterior segment optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT).

Methods: One hundred-forty participants were consecutively recruited in the current study. Each participant underwent SS-OCT scanning at 0 and ?3 diopter (D) accommodative stress after refractive compensation, and ocular parameters including anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior and posterior lens curvature, lens thickness (LT) and lens diameter were recorded. Anterior segment length (ASL) was defined as ACD plus LT. Lens central point (LCP) was defined as ACD plus half of the LT. The accommodative response was calculated as changes in total optical power during accommodation.

Results: Compared to non-accommodative status, ACD (2.952±0.402 vs. 2.904±0.382 mm, P<0.001), anterior (10.771±1.801 vs. 10.086±1.571 mm, P<0.001) and posterior lens curvature (5.894±0.435 vs. 5.767±0.420 mm, P<0.001), lens diameter (9.829±0.338 vs. 9.695±0.358 mm, P<0.001) and LCP (4.925±0.274 vs. 4.900±0.259 mm, P=0.010) tended to decreased and LT thickened (9.829±0.338 vs. 9.695±0.358 mm, P<0.001), while ASL (6.903±0.279 vs. 6.898±0.268 mm, P=0.568) did not change significantly during accommodation. Younger age (β=0.029, 95% CI: 0.020 to 0.038, P<0.001) and larger anterior lens curvature (β=?0.071, 95% CI: ?0.138 to ?0.003, P=0.040) were associated with accommodation induced greater steeping amplitude of anterior lens curvature. The optical eye power at 0 and ?3 D accommodative stress was 62.486±2.284 and 63.274±2.290 D, respectively (P<0.001). Age was an independent factor of accommodative response (β=?0.027, 95% CI: ?0.038 to ?0.016, P<0.001).

Conclusions: During ?3 D accommodative stress, the anterior and posterior lens curvature steepened, followed by thickened LT, fronted LCP and shallowed ACD. The accommodative response of ?3 D stimulus is age-dependent.

Background: Dyop® is a dynamic optotype with a rotating and segmented visual stimulus. It can be used for visual acuity and refractive error measurement. The objective of the study was to compare refractive error measurement using the Dyop® acuity and LogMAR E charts.

Methods: Fifty subjects aged 18 or above with aided visual acuity better than 6/12 were recruited. Refractive error was measured by subjective refraction methods using the Dyop® acuity chart and LogMAR E charts and the duration of measurement compared. Thibo’s notation was used to represent the refractive error obtained for analysis.

Results: There was no significant difference in terms of spherical equivalent (M) (P=0.96) or J0 (P=0.78) and J45 (P=0.51) components measured using the Dyop® acuity and LogMAR E charts. However, subjective refraction measurement was significantly faster using the Dyop® acuity chart (t=4.46, P<0.05), with an average measurement time of 419.90±91.17 versus 452.04±74.71 seconds using the LogMAR E chart.

Conclusions: Accuracy of refractive error measurement using a Dyop® chart was comparable with use of a LogMAR E chart. The dynamic optotype Dyop® could be considered as an alternative fixation target to be used in subjective refraction.