Development of a New Type of Artificial Cornea for Treatment of Endstage Corneal Diseases

  • Jean T. Jacob-LaBarre
  • Delmar R. Caldwell


We report here the development of a cornea replacement implant which differs from corneal prostheses currently in use, in that it does not protrude into the inner eye nor is it made from hard materials. Our implant lies in the plane of the natural cornea and is made of flexible polymeric materials. The implant extends radially into the sclera where cellular attachment and infiltration from the surrounding tissue anchor the implant in place. The materials selected for fabrication of the prosthesis were chosen on the basis of the results of intralamellar implants in rabbit eyes. The prosthesis was evaluated by long-term implantation in cat eyes. Light microscopy and SEM were used to analyze the type and degree of cellular anchoring and ingrowth in the implant and the surrounding tissue response. The implant remained clear in the eyes for over a year without the adverse reactions seen with currently available implants.


Aqueous Humor Prosthesis Implantation Cellular Attachment Corneal Button Artificial Cornea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. Stone in: “Cornea Plastic Surgery,” P. V. Rycroft, Ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967, p. 375–379. “The Plastic Artificial Cornea (an 18 year study).”.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Cardona, Cornea, 2, 179–183 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. J. Girard, Cornea, 2, 207–224 (1983).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. P. Choyce, Israel J. of Medical Science, 8, 1285–1289 (1972).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Van Andel, Trans. Soc. Biomaterials, 14, 542 (1988).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Strampelli, Annals of Ophthalmology, 89, 1039, (1963). “Osteoodonteocerartoprostesi.”.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. F. Refojo & V. Kalevar, Investigative Ophthalmology, 11 (1), 67 (1971).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. C. Barber & F. T. Feaster, ARVO Abstracts, 40, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. M. Polack, Ophthalmology, 87, 693–698 (1980).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Bath, Am. Intra-Ocular Implant Soc. J., 6 (4), 126–128 (1980).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. A. Barron, S. Dingeldein, H. E. Kaufman, Am. J. Ophthalmology, 103 (3), 331–332 (1987).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. C. Woodward & T. N. Salthouse in: “Handbook of Biomaterials Evaluation,” A. von Recum, Ed., Chapter 30, Macmillan, NY, 1985. “The Tissue Response And Its Evaluation By Light Microscopy”.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. L. Brown & C. H. Dohlman, Arch. Ophthalmology, 73, 635 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean T. Jacob-LaBarre
    • 1
    • 2
  • Delmar R. Caldwell
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.LSU Eye CenterLouisiana State University Medical Center, School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyTulane University School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations