Literature DB >> 19092400

Endothelial keratoplasty: the influence of insertion techniques and incision size on donor endothelial survival.

Mark A Terry1, Hisham A Saad, Neda Shamie, Edwin S Chen, Paul M Phillips, Daniel J Friend, Jeffrey D Holiman, Christopher Stoeger.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the acute endothelial cell damage from trephination and tissue insertion in endothelial keratoplasty (EK) surgery. The influence of insertion technique (forceps insertion vs "pull-through" insertion) of donor tissue and incision size (3 vs 5 mm length) was assessed.
METHODS: Forty precut 8.-mm-diameter donor posterior buttons were used in this study. Thirty-five buttons were inserted through a limbal incision of either 3 or 5 mm length into the anterior chamber of cadaver eyes and then removed through an open sky technique without further trauma. Five buttons that were trephined but not inserted served as a control group. Vital dye staining and computer digitized planimetry were used to analyze the tissue and quantify the total damaged area over the entire endothelial surface. Five buttons for each of 7 insertion techniques were used. The 8 tissue groups evaluated were as follows: group 1: control group of trephination only, with no insertion; group 2: forceps with folded tissue through 5-mm incision; group 3: suture pull through of nonfolded tissue through a 5-mm incision; group 4: forceps pull through of Busin glide folded tissue through a 5-mm incision; group 5: forceps with folded tissue through a 3-mm incision; group 6: suture pull through with folded tissue through a 3-mm incision; group 7: suture pull through with nonfolded tissue through a 3-mm incision; and group 8: forceps pull through of Busin glide folded tissue through a 3-mm incision.
RESULTS: The control group demonstrated 9% +/- 2% peripheral cell damage from simple trephination of the tissue but without insertion. In the 5-mm incision surgeries, forceps insertion (group 2) caused 18% +/- 3% loss, suture pull-through insertion (group 3) caused 18% +/- 2% loss, and Busin glide pull through (group 4) caused 20% +/- 5% loss. There were no significant differences in damage between any of the 5-mm incision group techniques (P > 0.99). In the 3-mm incision surgeries, forceps insertion (group 5) caused a 30% +/- 3% loss, pull through with folded tissue (group 6) caused 30% +/- 5% loss, pull through with nonfolded tissue (group 7) caused 56% +/- 4% loss, and Busin glide pull through (group 8) caused a 28%+/- 5% loss. There was no difference in damage among the 3-mm groups (P > 0.96), with the exception of group 7 where pulling the unfolded tissue through a 3-mm incision was significantly worse than all other techniques (P < 0.001). There was significantly greater cell area damage in the 3-mm groups (36%) than in the 5-mm groups (19%) (P <0.001). Large patterns of striae with cell loss were seen in the 3-mm groups emanating from the peripheral traction site, regardless of whether the traction to pull the tissue through the incision and into the chamber was generated by a suture or cross-chamber forceps. Direct forceps insertion caused circular patterns of injury at the tip compression site regardless of incision size, but this damage was multiplied and exacerbated by insertion through a smaller incision.
CONCLUSIONS: Smaller size (3 mm) incisions for EK surgery result in greater acute endothelial area damage than larger size (5 mm) incisions. Pull-through insertion techniques through a 5-mm incision seem equivalent in the amount of induced area damage to that of forceps insertion. Compressive injury from the incision appeared less when the tissue was folded than when not folded. Insertion with any technique through a 3-mm incision resulted in larger areas of endothelial damage. All these iatrogenic death zones outside the central endothelial area would be missed clinically by standard early specular microscopy after EK surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19092400     DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318182a4d3

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


  20 in total

1.  Effect of incision width on graft survival and endothelial cell loss after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.

Authors:  Marianne O Price; Maria Bidros; Mark Gorovoy; Francis W Price; Beth A Benetz; Harry J Menegay; Sara M Debanne; Jonathan H Lass
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  Vulnerability of corneal endothelial cells to mechanical trauma from indentation forces assessed using contact mechanics and fluorescence microscopy.

Authors:  Manuel A Ramirez-Garcia; Yousuf M Khalifa; Mark R Buckley
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 3.467

Review 3.  Graft survival and endothelial outcomes in the new era of endothelial keratoplasty.

Authors:  Sanjay V Patel
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 3.467

4.  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

Review 5.  [Critical endothelial procedures during posterior lamellar graft preparation and transplantation].

Authors:  T A Fuchsluger; F E Kruse; G Geerling
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.059

6.  Donor, Recipient, and Operative Factors Associated with Graft Success in the Cornea Preservation Time Study.

Authors:  Mark A Terry; Anthony J Aldave; Loretta B Szczotka-Flynn; Wendi Liang; Allison R Ayala; Maureen G Maguire; Christopher Croasdale; Yassine J Daoud; Steven P Dunn; Caroline K Hoover; Marian S Macsai; Thomas F Mauger; Sudeep Pramanik; George O D Rosenwasser; Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer; R Doyle Stulting; Alan Sugar; Elmer Y Tu; David D Verdier; Sonia H Yoo; Jonathan H Lass
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 7.  Corneal endothelial autocrine trophic factor VIP in a mechanism-based strategy to enhance human donor cornea preservation for transplantation.

Authors:  Shay-Whey Margaret Koh
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 3.467

8.  Effects of a novel push-through technique using the implantable collamer lens injector system for graft delivery during endothelial keratoplasty.

Authors:  Sug Jae Kang; Myung Hun Kim; Mee Kum Kim; Won Ryang Wee; Jin Hak Lee; Eui Sang Chung
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-02-28

9.  Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: three-year graft and endothelial cell survival compared with penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors:  Marianne O Price; Mark Gorovoy; Francis W Price; Beth A Benetz; Harry J Menegay; Jonathan H Lass
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2012-10-27       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  Donor age and factors related to endothelial cell loss 10 years after penetrating keratoplasty: Specular Microscopy Ancillary Study.

Authors:  Jonathan H Lass; Beth Ann Benetz; Robin L Gal; Craig Kollman; Dan Raghinaru; Mariya Dontchev; Mark J Mannis; Edward J Holland; Christopher Chow; Kristen McCoy; Francis W Price; Alan Sugar; David D Verdier; Roy W Beck
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 12.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.