↓ Skip to main content

Cryopreserved amniotic membrane as transplant allograft: viability and post-transplant outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Cell and Tissue Banking, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Cryopreserved amniotic membrane as transplant allograft: viability and post-transplant outcome
Published in
Cell and Tissue Banking, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10561-015-9530-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasha M. J. Perepelkin, Kirsten Hayward, Tumelo Mokoena, Michael J. Bentley, Lisa U. Ross-Rodriguez, Leah Marquez-Curtis, Locksley E. McGann, Jelena L. Holovati, Janet A. W. Elliott

Abstract

Amniotic membrane (AM) transplantation is increasingly used in ophthalmological and dermatological surgeries to promote re-epithelialization and wound healing. Biologically active cells in the epithelial and stromal layers deliver growth factors and cytokines with anti-inflammatory, anti-bacterial, anti-immunogenic and anti-fibrotic properties. In this work, confocal microscopy was used to show that our cryopreservation protocol for AM yielded viable cells in both the stromal and epithelial layers with favorable post-transplant outcome. AM was obtained from Caesarean-section placenta, processed into allograft pieces of different sizes (3 cm × 3 cm, 5 cm × 5 cm, and 10 cm × 10 cm) and cryopreserved in 10 % dimethyl sulfoxide using non-linear controlled rate freezing. Post-thaw cell viability in the entire piece of AM and in the stromal and epithelial cell layers was assessed using a dual fluorescent nuclear dye and compared to hypothermically stored AM, while surveys from surgical end-users provided information on post-transplant patient outcomes. There was no significant statistical difference in the cell viability in the entire piece, epithelial and stromal layers regardless of the size of allograft piece (p = 0.092, 0.188 and 0.581, respectively), and in the entire piece and stromal layer of hypothermically stored versus cryopreserved AM (p = 0.054 and 0.646, respectively). Surgical end-user feedback (n = 49) indicated that 16.3 % of AM allografts were excellent and 61.2 % were satisfactory. These results support the expanded clinical use of different sizes of cryopreserved AM allografts and address the issue of orientation of the AM during transplant for the treatment of dermatological defects and ocular surface disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Other 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Engineering 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,741,473
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Cell and Tissue Banking
#59
of 287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,432
of 267,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell and Tissue Banking
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 287 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them