Rabbit Corneal Wound Treatment Using Small Intestinal Submucosa (SIS) and Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) Scaffold

Traumatic corneal wounds elicit a multitude of inflammatory reactions. This severe inflammation can lead to fibrosis or scarring on the cornea's surface by inhibiting the growth of the natural epithelium. The present study investigates the healing effects of two simultaneous treatments of small intestine submucosal graft (SIS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in rabbit corneal wound healing. Twenty white New Zealand rabbits, with an average weight of 2.5 to 3 kilograms, exhibiting no clinical signs of ocular disease, were selected for the study. These rabbits were divided into four groups, with a total of five animals per group, for the purpose of a wound induction test using a crescent knife. Subsequent to wound formation, the groups under study included a control group (absence of corneal wound covering with only physiological serum), PRP+SIS, SIS, and PRP in the form of 1 cc subconjunctival drops of PRP every 12 hours. In groups with SIS, the dressing was placed on the wound with a circumferential suture. A clinical eye examination and fluorescein staining were performed to assess the wounds in terms of size, infection, turbidity, and edema. Twenty-one days after the operation, half of the animals from each group were euthanized, and their corneas were evaluated by histopathology. On the 21st day of the study, the PRP+SIS group exhibited the lowest level of corneal opacity. In the histopathological evaluation, the calculation of the number of rows of epithelium was not significant. The corneas of the PRP and SIS + PRP groups, as well as the SIS group, exhibited significantly less vascularization compared to the control group. The order of stromal collagens proved to be a significant factor in both the SIS group with SIS + PRP and the control group with SIS + PRP. A statistically significant difference in the extent of edema was observed between the control group and the SIS + PRP and PRP groups. A statistically significant decrease in inflammation was observed between the control and SIS+PRP groups, with the latter exhibiting markedly reduced levels of inflammation. The findings of this study demonstrate that the simultaneous use of SIS and PRP is not feasible.