July 2019
Volume 60, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2019
Differences in eye bank corneal endothelial cell density after storage in Optisol GS versus Life4°C solutions
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Daniel J Polla
    Ophthalmology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, United States
  • Gabriel M Rand
    Ophthalmology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, United States
  • Patrick Gore
    Saving Sight, Kansas City, Missouri, United States
  • Lynn Forest-Smith
    Saving Sight, Kansas City, Missouri, United States
  • Tina Livesay
    Saving Sight, Kansas City, Missouri, United States
  • Roy S Chuck
    Ophthalmology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Daniel Polla, None; Gabriel Rand, None; Patrick Gore, None; Lynn Forest-Smith, None; Tina Livesay, None; Roy Chuck, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2019, Vol.60, 3822. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Daniel J Polla, Gabriel M Rand, Patrick Gore, Lynn Forest-Smith, Tina Livesay, Roy S Chuck; Differences in eye bank corneal endothelial cell density after storage in Optisol GS versus Life4°C solutions. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):3822.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The aim of the study was to compare eye bank donor corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) after storage in Optisol GS or Life4°C solutions.

Methods : A retrospective analysis of a donor database from the Saving Sight Eye Bank was performed. The data included 24,581 donated eye bank corneas from 2011 through 2017 stored in Optisol GS or Life4°C solutions. The primary outcome of interest was ECD. Factors that were analyzed included donor past medical history and tissue characteristics. Analysis was completed with logistic and linear regressions.

Results : 22,178 (90.2%) donor corneas were stored in Life4°C and 2,403 (9.8%) were stored in Optisol GS. From 2011 to 2016, Life4°C was used to store 96.0% of donor corneas, however in 2017, the eye bank switched to Optisol GS to store 98.1% of donor corneas. A statistically, although not clinically, significant difference in donor age existed between the Life4°C and Optisol GS groups (56 vs. 57 years respectively, p=.006). There was no statistically significant difference in gender distribution between Life4°C and Optisol GS groups (38% vs. 39% female respectively, p=0.42). 86% of donors were phakic in both groups with no statistically significant difference (p=0.59). Donor corneas were stored in Life4°C for an average of 2.2 days and in Optisol GS for 3.6 days (p=0.76). Mean ECD after storage in Life4°C was 2,446 cell/mm2 compared to 2,629 cell/mm2 after storage in Optisol GS. After adjusting for age, time in storage media, and phakic status, a difference in ECD of 173 cell/mm2 existed between storage media groups (Optisol GS>Life4°C, p<0.001).

Conclusions : Eye bank donor corneas stored in Optisol GS solution were associated with higher ECD than eye bank donor corneas stored in Life4°C solution.

This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.

×
×

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.

×