Cargando…
Eye bank issues: II. Preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage
Most of the tissue used for penetrating keratoplasty is issued through eye banks that store the corneoscleral button either in hypothermic storage at 2–6°C or in organ culture at 31–37°C. These two preservation techniques differ in technical aspects, tissue evaluation possibilities, storage time and...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2007
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2359829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17505780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-007-9086-1 |
_version_ | 1782152910675640320 |
---|---|
author | Elisabeth, Pels Hilde, Beele Ilse, Claerhout |
author_facet | Elisabeth, Pels Hilde, Beele Ilse, Claerhout |
author_sort | Elisabeth, Pels |
collection | PubMed |
description | Most of the tissue used for penetrating keratoplasty is issued through eye banks that store the corneoscleral button either in hypothermic storage at 2–6°C or in organ culture at 31–37°C. These two preservation techniques differ in technical aspects, tissue evaluation possibilities, storage time and microbiological safety. Hypothermic storage is simple and requires little expensive equipment. In general a pre-storage evaluation of the endothelium is performed by specular microscopy and storage time is usually around 7–10 days. Organ culture is a relatively complicated technique requiring more expertise and well-equipped facilities. Evaluation of the endothelium is not only performed before storage, but is routinely performed after storage through the use of light microscopy. With organ culture the allowed storage period is longer, up to four weeks. The vulnerability of organ culture to microbial contamination can be turned into an advantage because it allows the detection of residual micro-organisms on the cornea before surgery. Both preservation techniques seem to result in similar graft survival. The method of choice for preservation of the donor cornea is dictated by a number of factors mentioned in this review and this helps to explain the geographical differences in the use of the different techniques. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2359829 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2007 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-23598292008-05-01 Eye bank issues: II. Preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage Elisabeth, Pels Hilde, Beele Ilse, Claerhout Int Ophthalmol Original Paper Most of the tissue used for penetrating keratoplasty is issued through eye banks that store the corneoscleral button either in hypothermic storage at 2–6°C or in organ culture at 31–37°C. These two preservation techniques differ in technical aspects, tissue evaluation possibilities, storage time and microbiological safety. Hypothermic storage is simple and requires little expensive equipment. In general a pre-storage evaluation of the endothelium is performed by specular microscopy and storage time is usually around 7–10 days. Organ culture is a relatively complicated technique requiring more expertise and well-equipped facilities. Evaluation of the endothelium is not only performed before storage, but is routinely performed after storage through the use of light microscopy. With organ culture the allowed storage period is longer, up to four weeks. The vulnerability of organ culture to microbial contamination can be turned into an advantage because it allows the detection of residual micro-organisms on the cornea before surgery. Both preservation techniques seem to result in similar graft survival. The method of choice for preservation of the donor cornea is dictated by a number of factors mentioned in this review and this helps to explain the geographical differences in the use of the different techniques. Springer Netherlands 2007-05-16 2008-06 /pmc/articles/PMC2359829/ /pubmed/17505780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-007-9086-1 Text en © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Elisabeth, Pels Hilde, Beele Ilse, Claerhout Eye bank issues: II. Preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage |
title | Eye bank issues: II. Preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage |
title_full | Eye bank issues: II. Preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage |
title_fullStr | Eye bank issues: II. Preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage |
title_full_unstemmed | Eye bank issues: II. Preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage |
title_short | Eye bank issues: II. Preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage |
title_sort | eye bank issues: ii. preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2359829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17505780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-007-9086-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT elisabethpels eyebankissuesiipreservationtechniqueswarmversuscoldstorage AT hildebeele eyebankissuesiipreservationtechniqueswarmversuscoldstorage AT ilseclaerhout eyebankissuesiipreservationtechniqueswarmversuscoldstorage |