May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Effect of Novel Polymer Interventions on Normal and Form–Deprived Myopic Eyes of Chicks
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J. Su
    Vision Science, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
  • A. Montanez
    Vision Science, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
  • E. Tarutta
    Helmholtz Research Institute of Eye Diseases, Moscow, Russian Federation
  • E. Iomdina
    Helmholtz Research Institute of Eye Diseases, Moscow, Russian Federation
  • J. Song
    Molecular Foundry, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Berkeley, CA
  • C. Wildsoet
    Vision Science, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J. Su, None; A. Montanez, None; E. Tarutta, None; E. Iomdina, None; J. Song, None; C. Wildsoet, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH T32–EY07043; NIH EY RO12392
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 3324. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J. Su, A. Montanez, E. Tarutta, E. Iomdina, J. Song, C. Wildsoet; Effect of Novel Polymer Interventions on Normal and Form–Deprived Myopic Eyes of Chicks . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):3324.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To investigate two different approaches for direct manipulation of scleral growth and/or strengthening involving polymers, either implanted or injected adjacent to the outer scleral surface.

Methods: : (1) Strips of 5% poly–(hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (pHEMA) (0.5 x 3 x 10 mm) were hydrated in sterile PBS and implanted into 2–wk old chicks (n=6), against the outer sclera at the posterior pole of left eyes. A–scan ultrasonography measurements (main ocular components) of all eyes were taken prior to surgery (day 0) and at 3–4 day intervals out to 29 days. All chicks were sacrificed for histology. (2) 12 chicks were each injected monocularly with 0.15 ml of an in–situ polymerizing gel (main ingredient: polyvinylpyrolidone (PVP)) at the posterior pole; eyes were measured by ultrasonography in 2–7 day intervals up to 22 days post–injection. For histology, 3 chicks were sacrificed at weekly intervals post–injection. (3) In 9 chicks, 1 eye was injected with the same polymer gel and then fitted with a diffuser 1 day later, with 3 chicks sacrificed at weekly intervals for histology. Ultrasonography was performed at 2–7 day intervals up to 25 days.

Results: : Implanted pHEMA did not significantly affect ocular dimensions overall, including scleral thickness (day 29: treated = 170±6 um, fellow = 154±6 um). In contrast, while the axial lengths of PVP treated eyes were not affected, their scleras showed significant increases in thickness beyond 8 days (treated = 206±30 um, fellow = 136±7 um, day 22; p=0.0159). PVP treated form–deprived eyes showed no significant change in scleral thickness (treated = 143±3 um, fellow = 151±3 um, day 25), and they had longer axial lengths than their fellows, as typical with form–deprivation. No in vivo signs of either orbital/ocular inflammation were found. Nonetheless, fibrous tissue encapsulated pHEMA implants, and the injected gels of PVP–treated eyes were infiltrated with both cells and connective tissue matrix.

Conclusions: : The results represent "proof of principle" that scleral growth can be manipulated without adverse inflammatory responses. Injectable compared with implantable polymers produce different scleral responses; PVP produces scleral thickening while pHEMA implants stimulate fibrous tissue formation adjacent to sclera. Since neither approach slowed ocular elongation, additional factors must influence scleral surface area expansion in the chick.

Keywords: myopia • sclera • emmetropization 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.