Why take the eye? A systematic review of corneal retrieval methods and donor consent: implications for the UK.

IF 2.2 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Anya Edwards, Jack Ao, John D Bridson, Stephen B Kaye
{"title":"Why take the eye? A systematic review of corneal retrieval methods and donor consent: implications for the UK.","authors":"Anya Edwards, Jack Ao, John D Bridson, Stephen B Kaye","doi":"10.1136/bmjophth-2025-002372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the effect of the corneal retrieval method on three outcome domains: donor consent rate, tissue quality and microbial contamination.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was conducted using the Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases employing predefined search terms pertinent to corneal retrieval methods, consent rates, tissue quality and microbial contamination. Studies relevant to corneal donation and consent rates as well as reports comparing in situ corneal excision with whole-globe enucleation that evaluated at least one of the three primary outcome domains were included. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>12 out of 91 studies met the inclusion criteria. In situ corneal excision is associated with higher rates of consent from the family members of the deceased. Corneas harvested via in situ excision were of comparable tissue quality to those obtained from enucleation. Additionally, contamination rates were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In situ excision of corneal tissue may provide a potential advantage in donor acceptance, while offering comparable tissue quality and microbial safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":9286,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Ophthalmology","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12366586/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2025-002372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the effect of the corneal retrieval method on three outcome domains: donor consent rate, tissue quality and microbial contamination.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using the Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases employing predefined search terms pertinent to corneal retrieval methods, consent rates, tissue quality and microbial contamination. Studies relevant to corneal donation and consent rates as well as reports comparing in situ corneal excision with whole-globe enucleation that evaluated at least one of the three primary outcome domains were included. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results: 12 out of 91 studies met the inclusion criteria. In situ corneal excision is associated with higher rates of consent from the family members of the deceased. Corneas harvested via in situ excision were of comparable tissue quality to those obtained from enucleation. Additionally, contamination rates were similar.

Conclusions: In situ excision of corneal tissue may provide a potential advantage in donor acceptance, while offering comparable tissue quality and microbial safety.

Abstract Image

为什么要取眼睛?角膜回收方法和供体同意的系统回顾:对英国的影响。
目的:评价角膜回收方法对供体同意率、组织质量和微生物污染三个指标的影响。方法:使用Scopus、PubMed和Web of Science数据库进行系统的文献综述,采用与角膜检索方法、同意率、组织质量和微生物污染相关的预定义搜索词。有关角膜捐赠和同意率的研究,以及比较原位角膜切除术和全球摘除术的报告,评估了三个主要结果域中的至少一个。本研究遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。结果:91项研究中有12项符合纳入标准。原位角膜切除术与死者家属的同意率较高有关。通过原位切除获得的角膜与从去核获得的角膜具有相当的组织质量。此外,污染率相似。结论:角膜组织原位切除可能为供体接受提供潜在优势,同时提供相当的组织质量和微生物安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Ophthalmology
BMJ Open Ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
104
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信