Literature DB >> 18440638

Comparison of posterior lamellar keratoplasty techniques to penetrating keratoplasty.

Irit Bahar1, Igor Kaiserman, Penny McAllum, Allan Slomovic, David Rootman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe the visual outcomes and intraoperative and postoperative complications after penetrating keratoplasty (PK), deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty (DLEK), Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK), and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and to compare the results with those of previously reported series.
DESIGN: Prospective, comparative, nonrandomized study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-seven eyes of 161 consecutive patients who had corneal edema resulting from Fuchs endothelial dystrophy, pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, aphakic bullous keratopathy, failed graft or iridocorneal endothelial syndrome.
METHODS: All patients underwent either PK, DLEK, DSEK, or DSAEK at the Cornea Service of the Toronto Western Hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), manifest refraction, corneal endothelial counts, and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: The average 12-month postoperative BSCVA was 20/53 in the PK group, 20/80 in the DLEK group, 20/56 in the DSEK group, and 20/44 in the DSAEK group. The mean spherical equivalent was similar between groups, but tended toward hyperopia in the DSEK and DSAEK groups. The average refractive astigmatism was 3.78+/-1.91 diopters (D) in the PK group and 1.61+/-1.26 D, 1.86+/-1.1 D, and 1.36+/-0.92 D in the DLEK, DSEK, and DSAEK groups, respectively (P<0.0001). Early postoperative donor disc dislocations occurred in 6 (8.8%) patients in the DLEK group, 2 (12.5%) in the DSEK group, and 7 (15.6%) in the DSAEK group (P = 0.0004). Detached grafts were reattached and repositioned by injecting an air bubble to press the donor against the recipient cornea. Primary graft failure occurred in 1 (2.1%) of the PK cases, 2 (2.9%) of the DLEK cases, and 1 (2.2%) of the DSAEK cases; all underwent the same procedure successfully. Average cell loss at 1 year after surgery was 40.11% and was similar in the 4 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The DSAEK surgery enabled rapid and better UCVA and BSCVA when compared with PK, DLEK, and DSEK, with significantly lower astigmatism. Endothelial cell loss was similar, but the dislocation rate was significantly higher in the DSAEK group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18440638     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.02.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  60 in total

1.  Study of factors for unsuitability of DSAEK in cases of corneal decompensation following cataract surgery.

Authors:  Namrata Sharma; Ritika Sachdev; Ravindra M Pandey; Jeewan S Titiyal; Rajesh Sinha; Radhika Tandon; Rasik B Vajpayee
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-06-03       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 2.  [Complications of Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSAEK)].

Authors:  M A Thiel; F Bochmann; A Schmittinger-Zirm; P B Bänninger; M K Schmid; C Kaufmann
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  Long-term follow-up of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.

Authors:  Matthias Fuest; Sharita R Siregar; Abdelsattar Farrag; Hla Myint Htoon; Donald Tan; Jodhbir S Mehta
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  [Refractive changes after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty].

Authors:  T Röck; K U Bartz-Schmidt; D Röck; E Yoeruek
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.059

5.  [Standardized Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): technique and latest results].

Authors:  P P Ciechanowski; K Droutsas; L Baydoun; M Dirisamer; S Oellerich; G R J Melles
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 6.  Corneal blindness and xenotransplantation.

Authors:  Vladimir Lamm; Hidetaka Hara; Alex Mammen; Deepinder Dhaliwal; David K C Cooper
Journal:  Xenotransplantation       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 3.907

7.  [Perforating keratoplasty versus Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in the partner eye: Functional results and patient satisfaction].

Authors:  N J Gross; D Böhringer; P Maier; T Reinhard
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.059

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

Authors:  Allister Gibbons; Ella H Leung; Sonia H Yoo
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  A comparison of posterior lamellar keratoplasty modalities: DLEK vs. DSEK.

Authors:  Chan-Hui Yi; Dong-Hoon Lee; Eui-Sang Chung; Tae-Young Chung
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-08-03

10.  Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Shreya S Prabhu; Rola Kaakeh; Alan Sugar; Dean G Smith; Roni M Shtein
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-09-08       Impact factor: 5.258

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.