Descemet's Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in the Fellow Eye for Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy: A Retrospective Study

Principal Component Analysis of a Real-World Cohort of Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty and Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Cases: Demonstration of a Powerful Data-Mining Technique for Identifying Areas of Research

PURPOSE

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a descriptive exploratory statistical technique that is widely used in complex fields for data mining. However, it is rarely used in ophthalmology. We explored its research potential with a large series of eyes that underwent 3 keratoplasty techniques: Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), conventional Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (ConDSAEK), or ultrathin-DSAEK (UT-DSAEK).

METHODS

All consecutive DMEK/DSAEK cases conducted in 2016 to 2022 that had ≥24 months of follow-up were included. ConDSAEK and UT-DSAEK were defined as preoperative central graft thickness ≥130 and <130 μm, respectively. Seventy-six patient, disease, surgical practice, and temporal outcome variables were subjected to PCA, including preoperative anterior keratometry, the use of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) versus air for primary tamponade, and postoperative best corrected visual acuity and endothelial cell density. Associations of interest that were revealed by PCA were assessed with the Welch t test or Pearson test.

RESULTS

A total of 331 eyes were treated with DMEK (n = 165), ConDSAEK (n = 95), or UT-DSAEK (n = 71). PCA showed that ConDSAEK and UT-DSAEK clustered closely, including regarding postoperative best corrected visual acuity, and were clearly distinct from DMEK. PCA and follow-up univariate analyses suggested that in DMEK, 1) flatter preoperative anterior keratometry (average, K1, and K2) associated with more rebubbling ( P = 0.004-0.089) and graft detachment ( P = 0.007-0.022); 2) graft marking did not affect postoperative endothelial cell density; and 3) lower postoperative endothelial cell density associated with SF6 use (all P > 0.001) and longer surgery ( P = 0.005-0.091). All associations are currently under additional investigation in our hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

PCA is a powerful technique that can rapidly reveal clinically relevant associations in complex ophthalmological datasets.

Performance outcomes from a DMEK peeling and preparation wet lab

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) preparation performance of trainee surgeons in an ex vivo human donor cornea DMEK wet lab simulation setting.

METHODS

Human donor corneoscleral rims unsuitable for transplantation were obtained from Moorfields Lions Eye Bank. At the wet lab, graft stripping was performed by scoring the peripheral endothelium. The trypan blue positive cells (TBPC) and cell density (cells/mm2-reticule count) were counted manually before and after stripping. The procedural time, peripheral and central tears and complete peel-off were also recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

Eight trainee surgeons attended the wet lab each attempting three DMEKs. Between the first and last attempts a significant decrease was seen in the procedural time (17.6 min vs 10.6 min (p<0.05)) and the TBPC % (12.9% vs 3.8% (p<0.05)). The percentage of tears peripherally and centrally also reduced between the first and the last trials (50% vs 13% (p=0.2226) and 38% vs 0% (p=0.1327)). A significant correlation was found between longer peeling times and higher TBPC % (p<0.001) with a 0.7% endothelial mortality increase for each additional minute required to complete the peel.

CONCLUSIONS

DMEK wet labs provide a controlled risk-free learning opportunity for trainee surgeons to improve confidence and competence. Wet labs improve the success rate of DMEK graft preparation as well as flatten the learning curve. This emphasises the importance of continued support for the expansion of this valuable learning resource, promoting wider uptake of DMEK surgery.

DMEK surgical training: An instructional guide on various wet-lab methods

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is a partial-thickness corneal transplantation procedure that involves selective transplantation of the Descemet membrane and endothelium. DMEK offers significant advantages over other keratoplasty techniques, such as faster visual rehabilitation, better final visual acuity due to minimal optical interface effects, lower risk of allograft rejection, and less long-term dependence on topical steroids. Despite all its advantages, DMEK has been found to be more challenging than other corneal transplantation techniques, and its steep learning curve appears to be an obstacle to its widespread use and adoption by corneal surgeons worldwide. DMEK surgical training laboratories (wet labs) provide a window of opportunity for surgeons to learn, prepare, manipulate, and deliver these grafts in a risk-free environment. Wet labs are a significant learning tool, especially for those institutions that have limited tissue availability in their local centers. We provide a step-by-step guide for preparing DMEK grafts using different techniques on human and nonhuman models with instructional videos. This article should eventually help the trainees and the educators understand the requirements for performing DMEK and conducting a DMEK wet lab and develop their skills and interests from a wide variety of available techniques.

Belgian Endothelial Surgical Transplant of the Cornea (BEST cornea) protocol: clinical and patient-reported outcomes of Ultra-Thin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) - a multicentric, randomised, parallel group pragmatic trial in corneal endothelial decompensation

OBJECTIVES

Corneal blindness is the third most frequent cause of blindness globally. Damage to the corneal endothelium is a leading indication for corneal transplantation, which is typically performed by lamellar endothelial keratoplasty. There are two conventional surgical techniques: Ultra-Thin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) and Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK). The purpose of this study is to compare both techniques.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The trial compares UT-DSAEK and DMEK in terms of clinical and patient reported outcomes using a pragmatic, parallel, multicentric, randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation with a sample size of 220 participants across 11 surgical centres. The primary outcome is the change in best-corrected visual acuity at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include corrected and uncorrected vision, refraction, proportion of high vision, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and VFQ25), endothelial cell counts and corneal thickness at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up appointments. Adverse events will also be compared 12 months postoperatively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was reviewed by ethical committees of 11 participating centres with the sponsor centre issuing the final definitive approval. The results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, by patient partner groups and open access in peer-reviewed journals.

GOVERNANCE OF THE TRIAL

Both, trial management group and trial steering committee, are installed with representatives of all stakeholders involved including surgeons, corneal bankers, patients and external experts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05436665.

Ultrathin-Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of Ultrathin - Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) or Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis and conducted a literature search in PubMed and Cochrane Library, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Effects were calculated as odds ratios or standardized mean differences.

RESULTS

A total of six studies with 300 eyes in total (151 UT-DSAE and 149 DMEK) were included. BSCVA was superior in the DMEK group compared with the UT-DSAEK at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Rebubbling rates and overall adverse events were 2.37 and 1.48 times, respectively, higher in the DMEK group. The central corneal thickness and spherical equivalent were significantly lower in the DMEK group 12 months post-surgery. Endothelial cell density values were similar in both groups up to 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis comparing UT-DSAEK with DMEK. DMEK surgery resulted in significantly better BSCVA at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively compared to UT-DSAEK. UT-DSAEK had a better complication profile with lower rebubbling rates.

Graft Thickness at 6 Months Postoperatively Predicts Long-Term Visual Acuity Outcomes of Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty for Fuchs Dystrophy and Moderate Phakic Bullous Keratopathy: A Cohort Study

PURPOSE

It remains unclear whether preoperative central graft thickness (CGT) contributes to visual outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). This retrospective cohort study examined the ability of preoperative and postoperative CGT to predict 12-month best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) after DSAEK for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy/moderate pseudophakic bullous keratopathy/second graft.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent DSAEK in 2015 to 2018 were included. The primary end point was 12-month BSCVA. DSAEK-CGT was measured preoperatively and 6 times between postoperative day 8 and month 12. Eyes were divided according to preoperative CGT 130 μm (ultrathin-DSAEK threshold) or 6-month postoperative CGT 100 μm (mean 6-month postoperative DSAEK-CGT). The t test assessed CGT evolution of the 4 groups over time. Multivariate analyses examined whether preoperative CGT or 6-month CGT categories predicted 12-month BSCVA. Multivariate analysis assessed the preoperative/perioperative factors that predicted 6-month CGT.

RESULTS

A total of 108 eyes (68 patients) underwent DSAEK. Preoperative CGT was >130 and ≤130 μm in 87 and 21 eyes, respectively. Postoperative CGT was >100 and ≤100 μm in 50 and 58 eyes, respectively. Thin 6-month postoperative grafts thinned significantly more relative to preoperative thickness than thick grafts ( P < 0.001). Preoperative CGT subgroups did not show this difference. Six-month postoperative CGT ( P = 0.01), but not preoperative CGT, predicted 12-month BSCVA. Preoperative CGT strongly predicted 6-month CGT ( P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative, but not preoperative, DSAEK-CGT predicted 6-month BSCVA. The correlation between preoperative and postoperative CGT and interstudy variation in preoperative CGT measurement accuracy may explain literature disparities regarding the importance of preoperative CGT in DSAEK outcomes.

Effect of Collagenase A on Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Scroll Tightness

PURPOSE

The scrolling properties of the Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) graft are essential for surgical success. Currently, there is limited knowledge on what dictates the tightness of the DMEK scroll. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of temperature and protein digestion on DMEK graft scroll tightness.

METHODS

For the temperature experiment, a total of 28 eyes were used for this study. Scrolls in the cold group were kept at 4°C while scrolls in the hot group were kept at 37°C. Scroll width was recorded at the 5-, 15-, and 30-minute mark. For the protein digestion experiment, a total of 18 eyes were exposed to collagenase A (10 CDU/mL) in Optisol solution. Scroll width was recorded at the time points of 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 minutes.

RESULTS

The results of the temperature experiment did not yield any statistically significant changes in the mean scroll width of the DMEK scrolls across both temperature ranges and observation times. For the protein digestion experiment, the mean scroll width grew from 1.85 mm to 2.13 mm from the beginning of the experiment until the final observation at 20 minutes. This is a 14.7% change over 20 minutes with a P value (<0.001), exemplifying a statistically significant change in scroll width.

CONCLUSIONS

Temperature did not have any significant effect over scroll tightness, but scroll tightness decreased with collagenase exposure.

“Endothelium-Out” and “Endothelium-In” Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) Graft Insertion Techniques: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Background

We evaluated the visual outcomes and complications of “endothelium-out” and “endothelium-in” Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) graft insertion techniques.

Materials and Methods

Electronic searches were conducted in CENTRAL, Cochrane databases, PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov. Study designs included clinical trials, comparative observational studies, and large case series (≥25 eyes). PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting data and synthesis. Random-effects models were employed for meta-analyses.

Results

21,323 eyes (95 studies) were included. Eighty-six studies reported on “endothelium-out” techniques; eight studies reported on “endothelium-in” techniques. One study compared “endothelium-out” to “endothelium-in” techniques. Eighteen “endothelium-out” studies reported that 42.5–85% of eyes achieved best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≥20/25 at 6 months; pooled proportion of eyes achieving BCVA ≥20/25 at 6 months was 58.7% (95% CI 49.4–67.7%,15 studies). Three “endothelium-in” studies reported that 44.7–87.5% of eyes achieved BCVA of ≥20/25 at 6 months; pooled proportion of eyes achieving BCVA ≥20/25 at 6 months was 62.4% (95% CI 33.9–86.9%). Pooled mean endothelial cell loss was lower in the “endothelium-in” studies (28.1 ± 1.3%, 7 studies) compared to “endothelium-out” studies (36.3 ± 6.9%,10 studies) at 6 months (p = 0.018). Graft re-bubbling rates were higher in the “endothelium-out” studies (26.2%, 95% CI 21.9–30.9%, 74 studies) compared to “endothelium-in” studies (16.5%, 95% CI 8.5–26.4%, 6 studies), although statistical significance was not reached (p = 0.440). Primary graft failure rates were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.552). Quality of evidence was considered low and significant heterogeneity existed amongst the studies.

Conclusion

Reported rates of endothelial cell loss were lower in “endothelium-in” DMEK studies at 6 months compared to “endothelium-out” studies. Outcomes of “endothelium-in” techniques were otherwise comparable to those reported in “endothelium-out” studies. Given the technical challenges encountered in “endothelium-out” procedures, surgeons may consider “endothelium-in” techniques designed for easier intra-operative DMEK graft unfolding. “Endothelium-in” studies evaluating outcomes at longer time points are required before conclusive comparisons between the two techniques can be drawn.

Preventive treatment of allograft rejection after endothelial keratoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of preventive treatment against allograft rejection after endothelial keratoplasty (EK), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and ScienceDirect databases were searched until May 2021. We computed a random-effect meta-analysis on graft rejection rate stratified by the intervention (i.e. Descemet membrane EK (DMEK) and Descemet stripping (Automated) EK (DS(A)EK) or ultrathin (UT)-DSAEK), and postoperative treatment. Meta-regressions were performed to compare intervention, treatment and influence of putative confusion factors.

RESULTS

We included 49 studies and 12 893 EK (6867 DMEK and 6026 DS(A)EK/UT-DSAEK). Topical steroids were merged in two efficacy regimens: standard steroids (prednisolone acetate 1% or dexamethasone 0.1%) and soft steroids (fluorometholone 0.1% or loteprednol etabonate 0.5%). Globally, DMEK had a lower graft rejection rate than DS(A)EK/UT-DSAEK (coefficient - 3.3, 95 CI, -4.60 to -1.90; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between standard and soft steroids to prevent graft rejection after DMEK. After EK, the rate of ocular hypertension was 20% (95 CI, 14 to 26%) with the use of standard steroids and 7% (5 to 9%) with soft steroids. Comparisons of treatments were not feasible in DS(A)EK/UT-DSAEK due to a lack of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) has less risk of graft rejection compared with DS(A)EK/UT-DSAEK. Furthermore, soft steroids seemed to be a valuable alternative to standard steroids to prevent graft rejection after DMEK, involving a safe profile against ocular hypertension. Further studies are needed to compare other drugs in the prevention of graft rejection after EK.

Efficacy of Thin and Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty and Influence of Graft Thickness on Postoperative Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of thin and ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (T-DSAEK and UT-DSAEK, with graft thickness <130 and <100 µm, respectively), depending on graft thickness.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ScienceDirect databases were searched until October 1, 2021. We computed random-effect meta-analysis on postoperative outcomes of T/UT-DSAEK, stratified by graft thickness (<80 μm, 80-100 μm, and 100-130 μm). The main postoperative outcome was visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]). Secondary outcomes were pachymetry (μm), endothelial cell count (cell/mm²), spherical equivalent (diopter [D]), rebubbling rate (%), and rejection rate (%). Meta-regressions compared postoperative outcomes depending on graft thickness and search for putative confusion factors.

RESULTS

We included 47 articles for a total of 2141 eyes of 2040 patients. T/UT-DSAEK globally improved visual acuity (effect size = -0.38 logMAR [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.46 to -0.30 logMAR]), without difference depending on graft thickness. Overall, pachymetry improved (-60.6 µm [95% CI -101 to -19.7 µm]), endothelial cell count decreased (-1039 cells/mm² [95% CI -1209 to -868 cells/mm²), spherical equivalent resulted in a hyperopic shift (0.74 D [95% CI -0.50 to 1.97 D), the graft rejection rate was 0.2% (95% CI -0.1% to 0.4%), and the rebubbling rate was 8.7% (95% CI 6.8%-10.5%). Grafts >100 μm induced a hyperopic shift. Metaregressions did not demonstrate differences between the 3 groups (<80 μm, 80-100 μm, or 100-130 μm) in any outcomes.

CONCLUSION

All T/UT-DSAEK thickness groups provided similar visual acuity, pachymetry, endothelial cell count, rejection rate, and rebubbling rate regardless of graft thickness. A hyperopic shift was induced by grafts >100 μm.

Long-term Outcomes in Fellow Eyes Comparing DSAEK and DMEK for Treatment of Fuchs Corneal Dystrophy

PURPOSE

To compare the long-term results of Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in fellow eyes for treatment of Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy.

METHODS

This study is a 2-centered, retrospective case series of 64 patients (128 eyes) with DSAEK followed by DMEK. The main outcomes measured were best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and duration of time to achieve BSCVA as well as eye preference.

RESULTS

Preoperative median logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) BSCVA was similar in eyes receiving DMEK 0.36 ± 0.26 and DSAEK 0.42 ± 0.34 (P = .266). The average follow-up time needed for the DMEK eyes to achieve BSCVA was faster than that of DSAEK (277 days vs 490 days, P = .0014). With long-term follow-up, the BSCVA of the DMEK eyes [0.09 ± 0.10 logMAR] and DSAEK eyes [0.11 ± 0.16 logMAR] did not show a statistically significant difference (P = .069). Twenty-two of the 64 preferred the DMEK eye, 17 patients preferred the DSAEK eye (P = .423), and 25 patients did not have a preference. In the DMEK group, the average spherical equivalent was -0.08 compared with the DSAEK group at 0.06 (P = .2854).

CONCLUSION

In our fellow eye study with long-term follow-up, DMEK and DSAEK had comparable levels of BSCVA and patient satisfaction. The DMEK eyes reached their BSCVA sooner, whereas the DSAEK eyes improved over a longer time frame. A greater number of patients had 20/25 and 20/20 vision in the DMEK group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. NOTE: Publication of this article is sponsored by the American Ophthalmological Society.

Novel Technique for Descemetorhexis Under Ophthalmic Viscosurgical Devices and Air

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe a novel technique for descemetorhexis that combines the advantages of stable anterior chamber (AC) associated with ophthalmic viscosurgical devices and optimal surgical visualization seen with air to overcome the issues of poor Descemet membrane (DM) visibility or AC instability when each is used alone.

METHODS

This study is a description of a new surgical approach.

RESULTS

We describe a new technique for performing descemetorhexis. The simultaneous presence of cohesive ophthalmic viscosurgical device and air in the AC offers optimal DM visualization and guarantees a stable AC during this surgical step. It does not require an additional incision for an AC maintainer.

CONCLUSIONS

The described technique may facilitate the surgical step of descemetorhexis, offering improved AC stability and better visualization of the DM. It may reduce early postoperative graft detachment due to the presence of residues of the recipient's diseased DM.

Outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in Bangkok, Thailand

Purpose

To investigate the medium-term clinical outcomes and risk factors for primary graft failure after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in Thai patients.

Patients and Methods

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study. Sixty-two eyes of 62 patients who underwent DMEK at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, with a minimum of 24-month follow-up were recruited. Preoperative donor and recipient characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), graft clarity, endothelial cell density (ECD), central corneal thickness (CCT), and complications were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 67.2 ± 9.9 years, and 52% were female. The mean follow-up time was 37.5 ± 11.0 months. The most common indications for DMEK were Fuchs' endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) (53.2%) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK) (17.7%). Nearly half of patients had triple-DMEK. The median preoperative BCVA was 20/400. Postoperative BCVA of ≥ 20/40 was reached in 37.1% and of ≥ 20/20 in 6.5% after 1 month which increased to 54.8% and 17.7% after 3 months; and to 67.7% and 27.4% after 24 months. Endothelial cell loss (ECL) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 30.5%, 33.8%, 44.4%, and 45.9%, respectively. Graft diameter was the single factor, showing a significant relationship with postoperative ECD. Most frequent postoperative complications included graft detachment (22.6%), increased IOP/glaucoma (17.7%), and primary graft failure (16.1%). In univariate analysis, death-to-operation time and the diagnosis of PBK were significantly associated with the occurrence of primary graft failure.

Conclusion

DMEK is a safe, effective, and feasible treatment for endothelial failure in Asian eyes. Careful case selection, use of relatively fresh donor tissues, and appropriate surgical techniques can prevent primary graft failure and facilitate optimal outcomes following surgery.

Overall clinical outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in 600 consecutive eyes: A large retrospective case series

Purpose:

To analyze the overall clinical outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in 600 consecutive cases.

Methods:

Retrospective, consecutive interventional case series operated by a single surgeon. Six hundred consecutive eyes of 524 patients with endothelial dysfunctions of different etiologies scheduled for DMEK were included in this study. All donor tissues were prepared by the operating surgeon during the procedure, using McCarey Kaufman medium or Cornisol-preserved cornea with endothelial cell density (ECD) of ≥2500 cells/mm². Indications, postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), ECD, endothelial cell loss (ECL), and complications were analyzed postoperatively between 3 months and 2 years.

Results:

The commonest indication was post-cataract corneal edema/bullous keratopathy in 262 (43.7%) eyes followed by Fuchs′ endothelial corneal dystrophy 218 (36.3%). Vision affected comorbidities were present in 91 (15.2%) eyes. In phakic eyes with cataract (222; 37%), DMEK was combined with cataract surgery (Triple-DMEK). BSCVA of ≥20/25 was achieved in 41.0%, 46.4%, 49.2%, and 48.7% of eyes at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively and stabilized at 6 months (P = 0.54). Mean ECD decreased from 2884 ± 178 cells/mm² (n = 600) before surgery to 2223 ± 321 (n = 597), 2099 ± 354 (n = 524), 1918 ± 373 (n = 374), and 1772 ± 439 cells/mm² (n = 158) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months respectively. The corresponding mean ECL was 22.9 ± 11.4%, 27.2 ± 12.4%, 33.5 ± 13.0%, and 38.6 ± 14.3%, respectively (P < 0.05 for all-time points). The commonest complication was DM detachment in 59 (9.8%) eyes of which 23 (3.8%) eyes required rebubbling. Three (0.5%) eyes had primary graft failure. Endothelial rejection occurred in 7 (1.2%) eyes until the last follow-up.

Conclusion:

DMEK is a safe and effective procedure in different types of endothelial diseases with encouraging surgical and clinical outcomes. Complications are less and ECL percentage up to 2 years is acceptable.

Visual Quality and Subjective Satisfaction in Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK): A Fellow-Eye Comparison

BACKGROUND

To analyze objective and subjective visual quality differences between descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and ultra-thin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) with a paired contralateral-eye design.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, comparative, and observational case series study between DMEK and UT-DSAEK were presented. Visual acuity, refractive status and corneal quality assessment were compared between both endothelial keratoplasty techniques. The sample consisted of 20 eyes (10 patients) diagnosed with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy. All measurements were performed preoperatively and at six months after surgery. Analyzed data included the measurement of objective scattering index, modulation transfer function, Strehl ratio, and optical quality assessment (OQAS) values. Contrast sensitivity, subjective patient satisfaction, visual acuity, tomography, pachymetry, endothelial cell count, and refraction status were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Objective and subjective visual quality variables had similar results among UT-DSAEK and DMEK procedures. Statistically significant differences favoring DMEK against UT-DSAEK were found in endothelial cell density (658.80 ± 139.33 and 1059.00 ± 421.84 cells/mm², respectively), pachymetry (621.20 ± 33.74 and 529.70 ± 30.00 µm, respectively), and follow-up (45.50 ± 24.76 and 15.50 ± 8.43 months, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

UT-DSAEK and DMEK revealed no differences in terms of objective and subjective visual quality. However, DMEK showed a faster recovery during the follow-up, increased endothelial cell density, lower pachymetry, and a more anatomical posterior keratometry against UT-DSAEK in this case series paired-eye study.

Assessing the validity of corneal power estimation using conventional keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with Fuch's dystrophy undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty

PURPOSE

The present retrospective study was designed to test the hypothesis that the postoperative posterior to preoperative anterior corneal curvature radii (PPPA) ratio in eyes with Fuch's dystrophy undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is significantly different to the posterior to anterior corneal curvature radii (PA) ratio in virgin eyes and therefore renders conventional keratometry (K) and the corneal power derived by it invalid for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

METHODS

Measurement of corneal parameters was performed using Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam HR, Oculus, Germany). In 125 eyes with Fuch's dystrophy undergoing DMEK, a fictitious keratometer index was calculated based on the PPPA ratio. The preoperative and postoperative keratometer indices and PA ratios were also determined. Results were compared to those obtained in a control group consisting of 125 eyes without corneal pathologies. Calculated mean ratios and keratometer indices were then used to convert the anterior corneal radius in each eye before DMEK to postoperative posterior and total corneal power. To assess the most appropriate ratio and keratometer index, predicted and measured powers were compared using Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

The PPPA ratio determined in eyes with Fuch's dystrophy undergoing DMEK was significantly different (P < 0.001) to the PA ratio in eyes without corneal pathologies. Using the mean PA ratio (0.822) and keratometer index (1.3283), calculated with the control group data to convert the anterior corneal radius before DMEK to power, leads to a significant (P < 0.001) underestimation of postoperative posterior negative corneal power (mean difference (∆ = - 0.14D ± 0.30) and overestimation of total corneal power (∆ = - 0.45D ± 1.08). The lowest prediction errors were found using the geometric mean PPPA ratio (0.806) and corresponding keratometer index (1.3273) to predict the postoperative posterior (∆ = - 0.01 ± 0.30) and total corneal powers (∆ = - 0.32D ± 1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Corneal power estimation using conventional K for IOL power calculation is invalid in eyes with Fuch's dystrophy undergoing DMEK. To avoid an overestimation of corneal power and minimize the risk of a postoperative hyperopic shift, conventional K for IOL power calculation should be adjusted in eyes with Fuch's dystrophy undergoing cataract surgery combined with DMEK. The fictitious PPPA ratio and keratometer index may guide further IOL power calculation methods to achieve this.

Ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a fellow-eye comparison

Background

To compare the visual outcome and patients’ satisfaction after ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) performed on fellow eyes of the same patients.

Methods

In this retrospective study, the records of 18 pseudophakic patients affected by Fuchs endothelial dystrophy who underwent DMEK in one eye and UT-DSAEK in the fellow eye were reviewed. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), corneal pachymetry, keratometry, corneal aberrations, photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity, and endothelial cell counts measured 12 months after surgery in either eye were analyzed and compared. The results of a satisfaction questionnaire were also reviewed.

Results

Twelve months after surgery, BCVA was not significantly different in UT-DSAEK and DMEK eyes (0.10 ± 0.04 and 0.07 ± 0.07 logMAR, respectively); at both 4- and 6 mm optical zones total and posterior corneal higher order aberrations (HOAs), posterior astigmatism and total coma were significantly lower after DMEK; BCVA in both groups was significantly correlated mainly with anterior corneal aberrations; contrast sensitivity was higher after DMEK especially in mesopic conditions and at medium spatial frequencies; the endothelial cell density was similar, although slightly higher in the UT-DSAEK group (p = 0.10). The satisfaction questionnaire showed that although patients were highly satisfied from both procedures, more than half of them preferred DMEK and reported a more comfortable and quicker postoperative recovery.

Conclusions

DMEK and UT-DSAEK showed no evidence of difference in terms of postoperative BCVA, although DMEK had a better performance in terms of contrast sensitivity, posterior corneal aberrations and overall patient satisfaction.

Comparison of Endothelial Keratoplasty Techniques in Patients With Prior Glaucoma Surgery: A Case-Matched Study

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) with those of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) in eyes with prior glaucoma surgery.

DESIGN

Case-matched retrospective comparative case series.

METHODS

Setting/study population: 46 DMEK procedures were matched with 46 DSEK procedures at a single institution.

OBSERVATION PROCEDURES

cases were matched based on preoperative visual acuity, lens status, and surgical indication.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

the outcome measurements included visual acuity improvement, primary and secondary graft failure, endothelial rejection, intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation, and the need for additional glaucoma intervention.

RESULTS

Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved by -0.89 logMAR in the DMEK group and -0.62 logMAR in the DSEK group (P = 0.005) at 1 year follow-up. Visual acuity was significantly better in the DMEK group at postoperative months 1, 3, and 12 and at last follow-up. The percentage of patients achieving 20/40 or better best-corrected visual acuity was higher in the DMEK group at all time points, notably 47% in the DMEK group versus 15% in the DSEK group at 1 year (P = 0.002). Secondary graft failure was lower in the DMEK group (DMEK 0% vs. DSEK 17%; P = 0.006). Primary graft failure rates and rebubling rates were similar. There were no differences in the rates of postoperative IOP elevation or in the need for additional glaucoma intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In complex eyes with prior glaucoma surgery, DMEK offers faster visual recovery, better final visual acuity, and a lower rate of secondary graft failure compared to DSEK during the first postoperative year and beyond.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty in the United States

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) compared with Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in the United States.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis in a surgical center in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

Binocular adult patient undergoing endothelial keratoplasty.

METHODS

A base case of a 70-year-old man undergoing his first endothelial keratoplasty for bilateral Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. The cost-effectiveness of DMEK was compared with DSAEK over a 15-year time horizon. The incidences and costs of complications were derived from PubMed English literature searches, Medicare reimbursements, and average wholesale prices. All costs were discounted 3% per annum and adjusted for inflation to 2018 U.S. dollars. Uncertainty was evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental cost-utility ratios, measured in cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Performing a DMEK instead of a DSAEK generated an extra 0.4 QALYs over a 15-year period. From a societal and third-party payer perspective, DMEK was cost-saving when compared with DSAEK in improving visual acuity in the base case. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with variations in the costs and rebubble rates revealed that DMEK was cost-saving compared with DSAEK in 38% of iterations and was within a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 in 98% of models.

CONCLUSIONS

From the societal and third-party payer perspectives in the United States, DMEK generated greater utilities and was less costly than DSAEK. Therefore, DMEK was the dominant procedure and was cost-saving with respect to DSAEK. The economic model was robust based on sensitivity analyses.

From DMEK to Corneal Endothelial Cell Therapy: Technical and Biological Aspects

The main treatment available for restoration of the corneal endothelium is keratoplasty and DMEK provides faster visual recovery and better postoperative visual acuity when compared to DSAEK. However, the technical challenges related to this technique and the steep technical learning curve seem to prevent the overcoming of DSAEK in favor of DMEK. Furthermore, the outcome of lamellar keratoplasty techniques is influenced by problems related to corneal grafting tissue availability, management, and quality. On the other hand, improvements in the field of cell engineering have opened the way for the use of stem cells-derived corneal endothelial cells with regenerative intent. In this overview, latest findings in endothelial cell engineering are reported, and perspectives of clinical application of mesenchymal stem cells for corneal endothelial replacement and regeneration are evaluated.

Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure

BACKGROUND

Corneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Both are still performed worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in people with Fuch's endothelial dystropy (FED) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 11 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised paired, contralateral-eye studies in any setting where DMEK was compared with DSAEK to treat people with corneal endothelial failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured in logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR). Secondary outcomes were endothelial cell count, graft rejection, primary graft failure and graft dislocation. We graded the risk of bias of non-randomised studies (NRSs) using ROBINS-I.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any RCTs but found four non-randomised studies (NRSs) including 72 participants (144 eyes), who had received DSAEK in the first eye followed by DMEK in the fellow eye. All the studies included adult participants where there was evidence of FED and endothelial failure requiring a corneal transplant for the treatment of visual impairment. We did not find any studies that included PBK. The trials were published between 2011 and 2015, and we assessed them as high risk of bias due to potential unknown confounding factors since DSAEK preceded DMEK in all participants. Two studies reported results at 12 months, one at 6 months, and one between 6 and 24 months. At one year, using DMEK in cases of endothelial failure may result in better BCVA compared with DSAEK (mean difference (MD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.10 logMAR, 4 studies, 140 eyes, low-certainty evidence). None of the participants had severe visual loss (BCVA of 1.0 logMAR or more; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding endothelial cell count data (4 studies, 134 eyes) it is hard to draw any conclusions since two studies suggested no difference and the other two reported that DMEK provides a higher cell density at one year (very low-certainty evidence). No primary graft failure and only one graft rejection were recorded over four studies (144 eyes) (very low-certainty evidence). The most common complications reported were graft dislocations, which were recorded in one or two out of 100 participants with DSAEK but were more common using DMEK, although this difference could not be precisely estimated (risk ratio (RR) 5.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 19.3; 4 studies, 144 eyes, very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review included studies conducted on people with corneal endothelium failure due to FED for whom both DMEK and DSAEK can be considered, and found low-certainty evidence that DMEK provides some advantage in terms of final BCVA, at the cost of more graft dislocations needing 're-bubbling' (very low-certainty of evidence).

DMEK versus DSAEK for Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy: A meta-analysis

Purpose:

To compare the safety and efficacy profiles of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in adult patients with Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy.

Methods:

Electronic database search on MEDLINE and CENTRAL from inception to August 2017. We included all comparative studies of DMEK versus DSAEK in patients with diagnosed Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy. Studies assessing rescue procedures were excluded to minimize bias. Primary outcome: mean difference in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes: rates of graft primary failure, rejection, and rebubbling; other graft-related issues; mean difference in endothelial cell density; subjective visual outcomes; and patient satisfaction.

Results:

A total of 10 retrospective studies of moderate methodological quality were included (n = 947 eyes, 646 DMEK). BCVA was better with DMEK at all evaluated time points (0.16 logMAR at 12 months) comparing to DSAEK (0.30 logMAR; p < 0.001). DMEK had a 60% lower rate of rejection (risk ratio (RR) 0.4, 95% CI (0.24, 0.67), p = 0.0005), but required more rebubblings (RR = 2.48, 95% CI (1.32, 4.64), p = 0.005). DMEK had more primary graft failures and less endothelial cell density loss, but statistical difference was not reached. More patients were satisfied after DMEK (odds ratio = 10.29, 95% CI (3.55, 29.80), p < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

DMEK showed better postoperative results regarding BCVA, patient satisfaction, and graft-related issues. However, the small number of studies with short follow-up times and other methodological issues prompt us to interpret these results carefully.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty/Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty

PURPOSE

To review and compare the published reports of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty/Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK/DSAEK) procedures with regard to endothelial cell density/loss, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, central corneal thickness, subjective outcomes (patient's reported satisfaction/preference), and postoperative complications.

METHODS

A thorough search was conducted in the databases including AMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and MEDLINE without date restrictions. Systematic reviews, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, case series, and audits comparing DMEK and DSAEK were included.

RESULTS

DMEK is superior to DSAEK for the following outcomes: visual acuity, central corneal thickness, and patient satisfaction. There was a statistically significant difference in the mean spectacle-corrected visual acuity at 6 months for DMEK (mean = 0.161, SD = 0.129) and DSAEK eye (mean = 0.293, SD = 0.153) conditions; t (297) = 8.042, P < 0.0001. The pooled mean difference was -0.13 (95% confidence interval, -0.16 to -0.09) and I = 44%, indicating better visual acuity for DMEK. Mean postoperative endothelial cell density showed statistically no significant difference in the mean values for DMEK (mean = 1855, SD = 442) and DSAEK eye (mean = 1872, SD = 429) conditions; t (336) = 0.375, P = 0.708. A higher proportion of patients prefer DMEK to DSAEK. However, DSAEK is superior to DMEK with respect to the need for rebubbling as the rebubbling rate was higher in the DMEK group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although DMEK is associated with a higher rate of rebubbling, better visual outcomes were seen in DMEK.

Efficacy and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Based on current evidence, the efficiency and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) was compared with that of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK).

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database and conference abstracts were comprehensively searched for studies that compared the efficacy and safety of DMEK and DSEK. The efficacy outcome was the postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). The safety outcomes included the postoperative endothelial cell density (ECD) and complications such as graft detachment, graft rejection, graft failure, postoperative elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), tissue loss, etc. The outcomes were pooled using random-effects models with Stata 13.0 software. Heterogeneity was qualified with Q statistic and I2/H2 statistic. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot, Begg rank correlation test, and Egger or Horbard linear regression.

RESULTS

19 articles were eligible, and 1124 eyes and 1254 eyes were included in the DMEK and DSEK groups, respectively. The overall pooled estimates showed a significantly better postoperative BCVA, a comparable ECD and an increased graft detachment rate in the DMEK group compared with the DSEK group (BCVA: mean difference (MD) = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.19 to -0.11, P<0.001; ECD: MD = 14.88, 95% CI = -181.50 to 211.27, P = 0.882; graft detachment rate: OR = 4.56, 95% CI = 2.43 to 8.58, P<0.001). Except for the postoperative ECD, which was changed to be higher in the DSEK group than the DMEK group, the learning curve did not have a marked effect on the comparison outcome of the BCVA and graft detachment rate based on the estimates pooled from studies that collected data during the DMEK learning phase (ECD (learning curve): MD = -361.24, 95% CI = -649.42 to -73.07, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Although DMEK is a more technically difficult and challenging procedure, it may represent a safe and more efficient alternative to DSEK for the treatment of corneal endothelial diseases, even during its learning curve.

Comparison of preservation and transportation protocols for preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty

Background/aims

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) preparation is technically demanding and is a limiting factor for uptake of this kind of surgery. Supply methods that simplify the procedure for surgeons are key to increasing uptake. This study compares two different shipping protocols for DMEK.

Methods

An 8.5 mm DMEK graft was punched, marked and loaded for transportation in two different conditions: (A) endothelium trifolded inwards in organ culture conditions (n=7) and (B) endothelium rolled outwards in hypothermic conditions (n=7). Tissues were shipped from Italy to the UK, then analysed for orientation, endothelial cell density, denuded areas, cell mortality, triple viability staining (Hoechst/ethidium homodimer/calcein AM (HEC)), immunolocalisation of ZO-1 and Na/K-ATPase proteins, visualisation of actin filaments using phalloidin and histological analysis using H&E on paraffin-embedded sections.

Results

All tissues clearly showed the mark used for graft orientation. After shipping in condition A, there was an increase in cell mortality of 8.1% and in denuded areas of 22.4%, whereas for condition B there was an increase in cell mortality of 14.2% and in denuded areas of 34.3% after shipping. HEC staining revealed areas of viable cells and apoptotic cells, with large denuded areas found in the periphery for condition B and within folds for condition A.

Conclusions

Prestripped preloaded DMEK grafts retained sufficient viable cells for transplantation, with condition A (endothelium-in) offering the advantage of greater flexibility of use due to a longer shelf-life. HEC analysis provides further detailed information as to the status of DMEK grafts and should be used in future similar studies.

Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty: Safety and Outcomes: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To review the published literature on the safety and outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for the surgical treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunction.

METHODS

Literature searches were last conducted in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases most recently in May 2017. The searches, which were limited to English-language abstracts, yielded 1085 articles. The panel reviewed the abstracts, and 47 were determined to be relevant to this assessment.

RESULTS

After DMEK surgery, the mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ranged from 20/21 to 20/31, with follow-up ranging from 5.7 to 68 months. At 6 months, 37.6% to 85% of eyes achieved BCVA of 20/25 or better and 17% to 67% achieved BCVA of 20/20 or better. Mean endothelial cell (EC) loss was 33% (range, 25%-47%) at 6 months. Overall change in spherical equivalent was +0.43 diopters (D; range, -1.17 to +1.2 D), with minimal induced astigmatism of +0.03 D (range, -0.03 to +1.11 D). The most common complication was partial graft detachment requiring air injection (mean, 28.8%; range, 0.2%-76%). Intraocular pressure elevation was the second most common complication (range, 0%-22%) after DMEK, followed by primary graft failure (mean, 1.7%; range, 0%-12.5%), secondary graft failure (mean, 2.2%; range, 0%-6.3%), and immune rejection (mean, 1.9%; range, 0%-5.9%). Overall graft survival rates after DMEK ranged from 92% to 100% at last follow-up. Best-corrected visual acuity after Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) ranged from 20/34 to 20/66 at 9 months. The most common complications after DSEK were graft detachment (mean, 14%; range, 0%-82%), endothelial rejection (mean, 10%; range, 0%-45%), and primary graft failure (mean, 5%; range, 0%-29%). Mean EC loss after DSEK was 37% at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence reviewed supports DMEK as a safe and effective treatment for endothelial failure. With respect to visual recovery time, visual outcomes, and rejection rates, DMEK seems to be superior to DSEK and to induce less refractive error with similar surgical risks and EC loss compared with DSEK. The rate of air injection and repeat keratoplasty were similar in DMEK and DSEK after the learning curve for DMEK.

A review of the evidence for in vivo corneal endothelial regeneration

Human corneal endothelium has long been thought to be a nonmitotic cell layer with no endogenous reparative potential. Pathologies that damage endothelial function result in corneal decompensation and, if untreated, blindness. The mainstay of treatment involves partial or complete corneal replacement, amounting to 40% of all corneal transplants performed worldwide. We summarize the case reports describing complications postoperatively in the form of (sub)total graft detachment and those resulting in postoperative bare stroma. Complications during cataract and glaucoma surgeries leading to an uncovered posterior cornea are also included. We discuss the newer treatment strategies that are alternatives for current Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty, including partial grafts and stripping of the diseased cell layer. In more than half of the cases reviewed, corneal transparency returned despite incomplete or no corneal endothelial cell transplantation. We question the existing paradigm concerning corneal endothelial wound healing in vivo. The data support further clinical study to determine the safety of simple descemethorexis in central endothelial pathologies, such as Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy, where presence of healthy peripheral cells may allow successful corneal recompensation without the need for donor cells.

[Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): Analysis of a variation in Descemet's endothelial graft preparation]

INTRODUCTION

Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) can replace just the corneal endothelium and respect the natural corneal anatomy. Currently, the technique of endothelial graft preparation remains manual and non-standardized.

PURPOSE

To report anatomic and functional results after DMEK, and compare two techniques of graft preparation.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective study, including 64 eyes of 64 patients undergoing DMEK, from September 2014 to February 2016 at Clermont-Ferrand University Medical Center. The "classic" preparation was used in 44 patients (group 1) and the "variant" preparation was used in 20 patients (group 2). An analysis of functional parameters (visual acuity), anatomy (pachymetry, corneal edema, endothelial cell count) and keratometry (sphere, cylinder, mean keratometry) was performed during the first postoperative year.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 10.0±2.5 months. The average preparation time was 12.3±8.1minutes, with 14.4±8.8 in group 1 versus 7.8±3.0 in group 2 (P<0.001). At six months, the best corrected distance visual acuity was significantly better in group 1 with an acuity of 0.28±0.28 LogMAR in group 1 and 0.37±0.30 LogMAR in group 2 (P<0.01). The best corrected near visual acuity was also better in group 1 at 6 months, with an acuity of 0.29±0.24 LogMAR (P<0.001) in group 1 and 0.37±0.28 LogMAR in group 2 (P=0.02). Improvement in visual acuity was continuous for the 2 groups. At 6 months, endothelial cell loss was greater in group 1 than in group 2, but the difference was not significant (P=0.44). Central corneal thickness was similar between the 2 groups. Finally, no change in keratometry parameters was found between preoperative data and 6 months in each group or between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

DMEK led to an improvement in all parameters as well as rapid visual rehabilitation. The new variation in preparation saved a considerable amount of time without decreasing graft survival or postoperative results.