Clinical Outcomes Of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Using The Bonfadini-Todd Injector For Graft Insertion

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: Update on preoperative considerations, surgical techniques, and outcomes

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is the closest to the physiological replacement of endothelial cells. In the initial years, the technique was surgically challenging. Over the years, with better understanding and modifications in the surgical steps, the technique has evolved as an alternative to more popular procedure Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty. The article highlights the various preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative nuances of DMEK. Additionally, it summarizes the various comparative and noncomparative studies on DMEK outcomes.

Comparison of triple-DMEK to pseudophakic-DMEK: A cohort study of 95 eyes

Previous comparative studies show that triple Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) (i.e. phacoemulsification followed immediately by DMEK) has either equivalent or better visual outcomes than DMEK in pseudophakic patients. To resolve this discrepancy, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. All consecutive patients with Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy who underwent triple or pseudophakic DMEK in 2015–2019 in a tertiary-care hospital (France) and were followed for >12 months were compared in terms of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), final refractive outcomes, and endothelial-cell loss at 12 months as well as rebubbling rates. The triple-DMEK (40 eyes, 34 patients) and pseudophakic-DMEK (55 eyes, 43 patients) groups were similar in terms of age and other baseline variables. They also did not differ in final BSCVA (both 0.03 logMAR), final endothelial-cell loss (54% vs. 48%), or astigmatism (-1.25 vs. -1 D). At 12 months, triple-DMEK associated with significantly smaller residual hyperopia (0.75 vs. 1 D; p = 0.04) and spherical equivalence (0 vs. 0.5 D; p = 0.02). Triple-DMEK also tended to associate with more frequent rebubbling (40% vs. 24%, p = 0.09). In conclusion, while triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK achieved similar visual acuity improvement, triple-DMEK was superior in terms of final sphere and spherical refraction but also tended to have higher complication rates.

Delivering Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts: Modern Day Transplant Devices

PURPOSE

To summarize the graft loading, transporting and delivery devices used for endothelial keratoplasty (EK).

METHODS

A literature search of electronic databases was performed.

RESULTS

New techniques and devices have been introduced and implemented to prepare, load, transport and transplant the grafts for EK. The advantages are not only limited to the surgical theatre but also widely spread across the eye banking field. Investigation of advanced materials and designs have been rapidly growing with continuous evolution in the field of eye banking and corneal transplantation. Innovative techniques and modern devices have been evaluated to reduce the endothelial cell loss and increase the precision of the transplant in order to benefit both surgeons and the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

It is extremely important to reduce any potential wastage and optimize the use of every available donor cornea due to the limited availability of healthy cadaveric donor corneas required for transplants. As a result, the use of pre-cut and pre-loaded grafts supplied by the eye banks in calibrated devices have been gaining momentum. Innovation in the field of bioengineering for the development of new devices that facilitate excellent clinical outcomes along with reduction in learning curve has shown promising results.

Tips, Tricks, and Guides in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Learning Curve

Lamellar keratoplasty is fast becoming the most popular form of corneal transplantation. The adoption of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in the management of Fuchs endothelial dystrophy and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy is partly responsible for this shift in the paradigm of management of corneal pathology. The learning curve of DMEK, however, has been proven to be much steeper than previous endothelial keratoplasty procedures. To ease the procedure, experts have proposed multiple innovative techniques from tissue preparation to graft unfolding to aid the more novice surgeon. Here, we collate and share tips and tricks from our collective experiences to support the learning curve and outcomes in DMEK for both the novice and more experienced corneal transplant surgeons.

Endothelial Cell Loss After Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty for Fuchs' Endothelial Dystrophy: DMEK Compared to Triple DMEK

PURPOSE

This study compared the outcomes after Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in pseudophakic patients with the outcomes after DMEK combined with cataract surgery (triple-DMEK) in patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy (FED).

DESIGN

Retrospective, single-institution, interventional, consecutive case series.

METHODS

Outcomes of 114 DMEKs in patients with FED at a minimum of 1-year follow-up were reviewed. A total of 34 eyes (29 patients) were pseudophakic and underwent only DMEK (DMEK-only), and 80 eyes (56 patients) underwent triple-DMEK. Main outcome measurements included endothelial cell loss (ECL), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central corneal thickness (CCT), and complications.

RESULTS

At 1 month, ECL was 25% (±16%) and 35% (±15%) in DMEK-only and triple-DMEK groups, respectively. At 1 year, ECL was 33% (±13%) and 41% (±16%) in DMEK-only and triple-DMEK groups, respectively. There was statistically significantly less ECL after DMEK-only than after triple-DMEK at both 1 month (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.67-15.02; P = .016) and 1 year (95% CI: 1.06-14.07; P = .034). CCT was significantly lower after DMEK-only than after triple-DMEK at 1 month but not at 1 year. BCVA was excellent and similar in the 2 groups. There were no cases of graft failure. Graft rejection and rebubbling rates were similar in DMEK-only and triple-DMEK groups: rejection occured in 8.8% and 8.75% of cases respectively (P = .50), and rebubbling in 2.9% and 2.5% respectively (P = .44).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the DMEK-only and the triple-DMEK groups had low rebubbling rates and good visual outcomes, but the combined triple-DMEK procedure resulted in significantly greater loss of endothelial cells than DMEK-only surgery at both 1 month and 1 year.