Gas-Graft Coverage After DMEK: A Clinically Validated Numeric Study.

DMEK endothelial keratoplasty intraocular gas numeric model patient positioning

Journal

Translational vision science & technology
ISSN: 2164-2591
Titre abrégé: Transl Vis Sci Technol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595919

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Historique:
received: 22 04 2019
accepted: 01 09 2019
entrez: 19 11 2019
pubmed: 19 11 2019
medline: 19 11 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

We investigate the influence of positioning, gas fill, and anterior chamber size on bubble configuration and graft coverage after Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). We use a mathematical model to study the bubble shape and graft coverage in eyes of varying anterior chamber depths (ACD). The governing equations are solved numericly using the open source software OpenFOAM. Numeric results are validated clinically so that clinical gas fill measures can be correlated with numeric results providing gas-graft coverage information otherwise clinically inaccessible. In a phakic eye (ACD = 2.65 mm) with a gas fill of 35%, graft contact ranged from 35% to 38% depending on positioning and increased to 85% to 92% with a 70% fill. In contrast, positioning of a pseudophakic eye (ACD = 4.35) with a gas fill of 35% results in graft contact ranging from 8% to 52%, increasing to 63% to 94% with a 70% fill. The mathematical model demonstrates negligible differences between air and SF6 results and interestingly, a very thin central patch of aqueous humor within the gas bubble is found in some cases. Graft coverage in phakic eyes (ACD ≤ 3 mm) is dominated by the gas fill and less sensitive to patient positioning. In pseudophakic eyes with larger values of ACD, the graft coverage depends on gas fill and patient positioning with positioning even more important as ACD increases. Anterior chamber depth markedly influences the role of patient positioning in gas-filled eyes after DMEK due to the interplay between anterior chamber anatomy and gas bubble morphology.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31737433
doi: 10.1167/tvst.8.6.9
pii: TVST-19-1585
pmc: PMC6855375
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

9

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright 2019 The Authors.

Références

J Biomech. 2009 Nov 13;42(15):2454-7
pubmed: 19674750
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Apr 08;52(5):2279-86
pubmed: 21178142
Cornea. 2016 Nov;35(11):1391-1395
pubmed: 27560030
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Apr;51(4):2243-7
pubmed: 19933190
Cornea. 2017 Oct;36(10):e23
pubmed: 28820794
Br J Ophthalmol. 1956 Sep;40(9):545-8
pubmed: 13364181
Ophthalmology. 2015 Sep;122(9):1757-64
pubmed: 26088620
Cornea. 2016 Apr;35(4):482-5
pubmed: 26807901
Cornea. 2013 Apr;32(4):e31-5
pubmed: 23471026
Am J Ophthalmol. 2018 Mar;187:117-124
pubmed: 29339064
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998 Mar;24(3):341-51
pubmed: 9559470
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 May;56(5):3061-8
pubmed: 26024090
Cornea. 2018 Jun;37(6):691-697
pubmed: 29561350

Auteurs

Jan O Pralits (JO)

Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Genoa, Italy.

Mark Alberti (M)

Department of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark.

Javier Cabreizo (J)

Department of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark.
Copenhagen Eye Foundation, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Classifications MeSH