Amniotic membrane grafts, “fresh” or frozen? A clinical and in vitro comparison
- aDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Queen Mary Westfield College, Mile End, London E1 4NS, UK, bTissue Services London and SE, East Anglia Tissue Bank, Long Road, Cambridge CB2 2PT, UK, cMoorfields Eye Hospital, City Road, London EC1V 2PD, UK
- Philip Adds, The Medical College of St Bartholomews and the Royal London, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Queen Mary Westfield College, Mile End, London E1 4NS, UKp.j.adds{at}qmw.ac.uk
- Accepted 12 March 2001
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS The use of “fresh” (hypothermically stored) and frozen amniotic membrane (AM) was compared in a patient with cicatricial pemphigoid with stem cell failure. The viability of both “fresh” and frozen AM epithelial cells was assessed after storage.
METHODS AM was stored at either +4°C (“fresh”) or at −80°C (frozen). A “fresh” graft was applied to the cornea following superficial keratectomy. Subsequently, a further frozen graft was applied to the same eye. Viability of the stored AM epithelium was assessed by investigating membrane integrity and mitochondrial activity.
RESULTS In both cases the cornea re-epithelialised and visual acuity improved. Improvement, however, was not sustained.
CONCLUSION Although both procedures led to an improvement in visual acuity, “fresh” tissue performed no better than frozen in promoting re-epithelialisation. The authors suggest that logistical, safety, and cost considerations outweigh any benefits of using “fresh” as opposed to frozen graft material.
