Abstract / Summary
Abstract Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare tissue quality between crematorium based and hospital based corneal retrieval programs in Nepal. Methods: It is a retrospective review of all 696 corneal donors from year 2020 to 2021. Information were taken from Electronic medical recors and eye bank records. Information extracted included demographic variables, cause of death, death to preserve time, cell density and quality of tissue from Hospital Corneal Retrieval Program (HCRP) and Crematorium based Corneal Retrieval Program (CCRP). Results: The average (sd) age of the donor in CCRP and HCRP tissue retrieving methods was 51.4 (19.7) and 48.9 (20.0) respectively which was statistically similar, p=0.104. A total of 183 (64.4%) and 268 (65.0%) male donors contributed to the CCRP and HCRP groups, respectively, p=0.868. Of the serology tested tissues, 475 (85.7%) in CCRP and 715 (87.5%) in HCRP were suitable for surgery (p=0.341). Among them, similar proportions were used for optical purpose i.e 432 (90.9%) in CCRP and 637 (89.1%) in HCRP. For therapeutic purposes, similar proportion was seen i.e 43 (9.1%) in CCRP and 78 (10.9%) in HCRP, (p=0.299). Reasons for tissues being not suitable for surgery were likewise comparable, with Multiple scars, sero‑positive status, and foreign bodies/infiltration were the primary reasons for tissues being not suitable for surgery in both groups. Most of the NSFS tissues were used for the training purpose (72.2% in CCRP vs 70.6% in HCRP). Death‑to‑preservation times was statistically similar between the retrieval methods for either optical or therapeutic tissues, p=0.375. While mean cell density was found to be significantly higher in HCRP compared to CCRP for optical quality tissues (2591.5 vs. 2519.5 cells/mm²; p=0.003), no significant difference was found for therapeutic‑quality tissues in both retrieving methods. Overall, demographic characteristics, tissue quality, and tissue preservation time were similar between CCRP and HCRP. Conclusion: Corneal donation is the only way to get transplantable eye tissue in Nepal, so this study is important for improving eye banking. Death to tissue preserve times and tissue quality found in both tissue revival methods were similar. Structured retrieval programs and rigorous screening ensure high-quality tissue availability.