Impact of Previous Cataract Surgery in Corneal Donors on the Outcome of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty.
Humans
Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Male
Female
Visual Acuity
/ physiology
Aged
Tissue Donors
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications
Cell Count
Endothelium, Corneal
/ pathology
Intraoperative Complications
Aged, 80 and over
Cataract Extraction
Adult
Pseudophakia
/ physiopathology
Corneal Pachymetry
Journal
Cornea
ISSN: 1536-4798
Titre abrégé: Cornea
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8216186
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2024
01 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
12
06
2023
accepted:
02
10
2023
medline:
8
10
2024
pubmed:
8
10
2024
entrez:
8
10
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to investigate differences between phakic, pseudophakic, and scarred stromal donor tissue for their influence on complication rates during preparation or implantation and on the postoperative outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). We retrospectively compared 484 eyes undergoing DMEK, divided into 3 subgroups of donor tissue (1: phakic, 2: pseudophakic, and 3: scarred stromal). Visual acuity, central corneal thickness (CCT), and endothelial cell count were monitored preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications was analyzed. The risk of adherence and tearing during preparation was significantly higher in group 2 than in the other groups (p's < 0.001). No significant difference was found for visual acuity (p's ≥ 0.368) and long-term CCT, but CCT recovery took longer in group 2 (P = 0.003), normalizing after 3 months (p's ≥ 0.096). The overall mean endothelial cell count was lower in group 2 compared with the other groups (P = 0.011). No difference in the rebubbling rate was detected (P = 0.890). However, the risk of repeat keratoplasty for phakic grafts was lower compared with group 2 (P = 0.008). Pseudophakic donor grafts are more difficult to prepare and implant, resulting in longer recovery times and a higher risk of graft failure. However, when the preparation is uneventful and no graft failure occurs, pseudophakic grafts show a comparable outcome. Given the shortage of corneal donors and the high prevalence of pseudophakic corneal donors, they should not generally be excluded from corneal donation for DMEK.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39377776
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003423
pii: 00003226-202407000-00006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
844-852Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Melles GRJ, Ong TS, Ververs B, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea. 2006;25:987–990.
Melles GRJ, Lander F, Rietveld FJR. Transplantation of Descemet’s membrane carrying viable endothelium through a small scleral incision. Cornea. 2002;21:415–418.
Matthaei M, Bachmann B, Siebelmann S, et al. Technik der “Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty” (DMEK). Der Ophthalmologe. 2018;115:778–784.
Baydoun L, Dapena I, Melles G. Evolution of posterior lamellar keratoplasty: PK–DLEK–DSEK/DSAEK–DMEK–DMET. In: Cursiefen C, Jun A, eds. Current Treatment Options for Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2017:73–85.
Deng SX, Lee WB, Hammersmith KM, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:295–310.
Rudolph M, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, et al. Corneal higher-order aberrations after descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:528–535.
Flockerzi E, Maier P, Böhringer D, et al. Trends in corneal transplantation from 2001 to 2016 in Germany: a report of the DOG–section cornea and its keratoplasty registry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;188:91–98.
Varadaraj V, Woreta FA, Stoeger CG, et al. Surgeon preference for endothelial keratoplasty techniques. Cornea. 2020;39:2–7.
2019 Eye Banking Statistical Report. Washington, DC: Eye Bank Assoc Am, 20036.
Spaniol K, Hellmich M, Borgardts K, et al. DMEK outcome after one year – results from a large multicenter study in Germany. Acta Ophthalmol. 2023;101:e215–e225.
Schaub F, Simons HG, Enders P, et al. Hornhautspende. Ein Dilemma zwischen wachsender Nachfrage und sinkender Spenderrate. Ophthalmologe. 2016;113:1058–1065.
Schaub F, Pohl L, Enders P, et al. Impact of corneal donor lens status on two-year course and outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255:2407–2414.
Lapp T, Heinzelmann S, Böhringer D, et al. Use of donor corneas from pseudophakic eyes for descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2018;37:859–862.
Spaniol K, Roth M, Holtmann C, et al. Corneas from pseudophakic donors for endothelial keratoplasty—challenges and solutions for Descemet-membrane preparation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56:1579.
Trouvain AM, Szurman P, Bocqué C, et al. Liquid bubble dissection technique assures rapid and safe DMEK lamella preparation. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259:3519–3520.
Szurman P, Januschowski K, Rickmann A, et al. Novel liquid bubble dissection technique for DMEK lenticule preparation. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254:1819–1823.
Rickmann A, Opitz N, Szurman P, et al. Clinical comparison of two methods of graft preparation in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Curr Eye Res. 2018;43:12–17.
Rickmann A, Wahl S, Katsen-Globa A, et al. Safety analysis and results of a borosilicate glass cartridge for no-touch graft loading and injection in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39:2295–2301.
Lüdecke D, Waggoner P, Makowski D. Insight: a unified interface to access information from model Objects in R. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4:1412.
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, et al. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67:1–48.
Kruse FE, Schrehardt US, Tourtas T. Optimizing outcomes with Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014;25:325–334.
Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Bachmann BO, Tourtas T, et al. Reproducibility of graft preparations in descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1769–1777.
Pilger D, Torun N, Maier AKB, et al. Pseudophakic corneal donor tissue in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): implications for cornea banks and surgeons. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2020;5:e000524–e000527.
Dunker S, Winkens B, Van Den Biggelaar F, et al. Rebubbling and graft failure in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a prospective Dutch registry study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2023;107:17–23.
Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, et al. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:2368–2373.
Yoeruek E, Hofmann J, Bartz-Schmidt KU. Histological and ultrastructural findings of corneal tissue after failed descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92:213–e216.
Tourtas T, Heindl LM, Kopsachilis N, et al. Use of accidently torn descemet membrane to successfully complete descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2013;32:1418–1422.
Monnereau C, Quilendrino R, Dapena I, et al. Multicenter study of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: first case series of 18 surgeons. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:1192–1198.
Heinzelmann S, Hüther S, Böhringer D, et al. Influence of donor characteristics on descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2014;33:644–648.
Müller TM, Verdijk RM, Lavy I, et al. Histopathologic features of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft remnants, folds, and detachments. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:2489–2497.
Maier AKB, Gundlach E, Schroeter J, et al. Influence of the difficulty of graft unfolding and attachment on the outcome in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253:895–900.
Rickmann A, Boden KE, Wahl S, et al. Significant differences between specular microscopy and corneal bank endothelial cell counts—a pilot study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019;97:e1077–e1081.
Yoeruek E, Bayyoud T, Hofmann J, et al. Comparison of pneumatic dissection and forceps dissection in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: histological and ultrastructural findings. Cornea. 2012;31:920–925.
Kletzky D, Parver L, Mathers W. Correlation of full-thickness corneal wound length with endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmic Surg. 1992;23:342–346.
Gupta K, Deng SX. Corneal endothelial decompensation. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2020;237:745–753.
Mellin K, Waubke TN. Der akute hornhautendothelzellverlust. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde. 1983;182:10–14.
Ham L, Dapena I, Liarakos VS, et al. Midterm results of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 4 to 7 Years clinical outcome. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;171:113–121.
Schlögl A, Tourtas T, Kruse FE, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;169:218–226.
Rodríguez-Calvo-de-Mora M, Quilendrino R, Ham L, et al. Clinical outcome of 500 consecutive cases undergoing Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:464–470.
Greiner MA, Rixen JJ, Wagoner MD, et al. Diabetes mellitus increases risk of unsuccessful graft preparation in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a multicenter study. Cornea. 2014;33:1129–1133.
Schultz RO, Matsuda M, Yee RW, et al. Corneal endothelial changes in type I and type II diabetes mellitus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;98:401–410.
Vianna LMM, Stoeger CG, Galloway JD, et al. Risk factors for eye bank preparation failure of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissue. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159:829–834.e2.
Phillips PM, Terry MA, Shamie N, et al. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) using corneal donor tissue not acceptable for use in penetrating keratoplasty as a anterior stromal scars, pterygia, and previous corneal refractive surgical procedures. Cornea. 2009;28:871–876.
Boulter T, Rayl S, McEntire MW, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty using tissues from donors with a history of radial keratotomy. Cornea. 2019;38:761–763.
Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, et al. Prevalence of cataract in Australia: the blue mountains eye study. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:581–588.
Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related lens opacities in a population: the beaver dam eye study. Ophthalmology. 1992;99:546–552.
Erie EA, Hodge DO, Mahr MA. Prevalence of pseudophakia: a U.S. population-based study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48:717–722.
Congdon N, Vingerling JR, Klein BEK, et al. Prevalence of cataract and pseudophakia/aphakia among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:487–494.
Regnier M, Auxenfans C, Maucort-Boulch D, et al.Eye bank prepared versus surgeon cut endothelial graft tissue for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Medicine (United States). 2017; 96:1–7.e6885.
Català P, Verresult ofmeulen W, Rademakers T, et al. Transport and preservation comparison of preloaded and prestripped-only DMEK grafts. Cornea. 2020;39:1407–1414.
Wojcik G, Parekh M, Romano V, et al. Preloaded descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts with endothelium Outward: a cross-country validation study of the DMEK rapid device. Cornea. 2021;40:484–490.