PURPOSE: To evaluate the rate of donor corneas misidentified as recipients of previous laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery in the eye banks. METHODS: One hundred sixty-one donor corneas identified as having had previous LASIK surgery from 15 eye banks were sent to the Emory Eye Center between January 2002 and August 2005. Determination of the previous LASIK surgery was made from the medical history and/or slit-lamp examination in the contributing eye bank. Histologic examination of the corneas was performed to confirm the diagnosis. RESULTS: Information regarding the decision making was available in 155 corneas out of 161. Among 155 corneas, 16 donor corneas (10.3%) revealed no evidence of previous LASIK surgery in the histology. The rate of misidentified corneas as having previous LASIK was 13.5% in history only group (10 of 74) and 18.2% in those determined by the slit-lamp examination only (4 of 22). In corneas determined by both history and slit-lamp examination, the misidentified rate decreased to 3.4% (2 of 59). CONCLUSIONS: There is approximately a 10% rate of misidentified post-LASIK corneas in eye banks. A decision made by both history and slit-lamp examination decreases the misidentification rate compared with using only either method alone.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the rate of donor corneas misidentified as recipients of previous laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery in the eye banks. METHODS: One hundred sixty-one donor corneas identified as having had previous LASIK surgery from 15 eye banks were sent to the Emory Eye Center between January 2002 and August 2005. Determination of the previous LASIK surgery was made from the medical history and/or slit-lamp examination in the contributing eye bank. Histologic examination of the corneas was performed to confirm the diagnosis. RESULTS: Information regarding the decision making was available in 155 corneas out of 161. Among 155 corneas, 16 donor corneas (10.3%) revealed no evidence of previous LASIK surgery in the histology. The rate of misidentified corneas as having previous LASIK was 13.5% in history only group (10 of 74) and 18.2% in those determined by the slit-lamp examination only (4 of 22). In corneas determined by both history and slit-lamp examination, the misidentified rate decreased to 3.4% (2 of 59). CONCLUSIONS: There is approximately a 10% rate of misidentified post-LASIK corneas in eye banks. A decision made by both history and slit-lamp examination decreases the misidentification rate compared with using only either method alone.