Literature DB >> 19034123

Endothelial keratoplasty: case selection in the learning curve.

Paul D O'Brien1, Damian B Lake, Valerie P Saw, Chad K Rostron, John K Dart, Bruce D Allan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Many corneal surgeons are making the transition from penetrating keratoplasty to endothelial keratoplasty techniques such as Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in the routine treatment of corneal endothelial failure. Donor dislocation is the commonest complication of these newer techniques. We set out to determine whether preoperative lens/iris diaphragm integrity might influence the rate of donor dislocation and whether donor endothelial failure was more common after surgical intervention for donor dislocation.
DESIGN: A retrospective multisurgeon comparative case series from a large teaching and referral center. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-three eyes of 85 patients: consecutive cases of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (n = 77) or Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (n = 16) performed between March 2004 and January 2007.
METHODS: A retrospective review of case notes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of eyes with an open communication between the anterior and posterior chambers (an iridectomy or lens capsular defect not covered by a posterior chamber intraocular lens), the number of eyes requiring surgical intervention to correct donor dislocation, and the number of eyes with donor endothelial failure within the follow-up period.
RESULTS: Complete data sets were available for analysis in 89 eyes. The median follow-up interval at the time of the audit was 7 months (range 1-34 months). Donor dislocation was significantly more common (P = 0.017) in eyes with an open communication between the anterior and posterior chambers, occurring in 11 of 25 cases (44%) versus 12 of 64 cases (19%) with an intact iris/lens diaphragm. Early endothelial failure was significantly more common (P = 0.011) in cases requiring additional surgical intervention for donor dislocation, occurring in 6 of 21 cases (29%) after successful surgical reattachment of a dislocated donor disc versus 4 of 67 cases (6%) in which no additional intervention was required.
CONCLUSIONS: Donor dislocation after endothelial keratoplasty is more common in cases with an open communication between the anterior and posterior chambers. The risk of donor endothelial failure is increased in cases of donor dislocation. Trainee surgeons and surgeons in making the transition from penetrating keratoplasty should initially select cases with an intact lens/iris diaphragm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19034123     DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318180e58b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cornea        ISSN: 0277-3740            Impact factor:   2.651


  9 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

2.  Endothelial keratoplasty: a comparison of complication rates and endothelial survival between precut tissue and surgeon-cut tissue by a single DSAEK surgeon.

Authors:  Mark A Terry
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2009-12

3.  Effect of Graft Attachment Status and Intraocular Pressure on Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Outcomes in the Cornea Preservation Time Study.

Authors:  Anthony J Aldave; Mark A Terry; Loretta B Szczotka-Flynn; Wendi Liang; Allison R Ayala; Maureen G Maguire; Robert C O'Brien; Beth Ann Benetz; John E Bokosky; Steven P Dunn; Thomas E Gillette; Kristin M Hammersmith; David R Hardten; Bennie H Jeng; Marc F Jones; Richard L Lindstrom; Kenneth J Maverick; Verinder S Nirankari; Matthew S Oliva; Irving M Raber; Christopher J Rapuano; George O D Rosenwasser; Kevin W Ross; John W Seedor; Neda Shamie; Christopher G Stoeger; Shachar Tauber; Woodford S Van Meter; David D Verdier; Jonathan H Lass
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  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

5.  Automated volumetric analysis of interface fluid in descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty using intraoperative optical coherence tomography.

Authors:  David Xu; William J Dupps; Sunil K Srivastava; Justis P Ehlers
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 4.799

6.  Influence of preoperative donor tissue characteristics on graft dislocation rate after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.

Authors:  Christopher T Hood; Maria A Woodward; Michael L Bullard; Roni M Shtein
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.651

7.  Complications and management in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty: analysis of consecutive 430 cases.

Authors:  Samar K Basak; Soham Basak
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.848

Review 8.  Corneal transplantation in the modern era.

Authors:  Rashmi Singh; Noopur Gupta; M Vanathi; Radhika Tandon
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): an update on safety, efficacy and patient selection.

Authors:  Bruno Lovaglio Cançado Trindade; Glauber Coutinho Eliazar
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-08-16
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.