Literature DB >> 19643492

Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

W Barry Lee1, Deborah S Jacobs, David C Musch, Stephen C Kaufman, William J Reinhart, Roni M Shtein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review the published literature on safety and outcomes of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) for the surgical treatment of endothelial diseases of the cornea.
DESIGN: Peer-reviewed literature searches were conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library with the most recent search in February 2009. The searches yielded 2118 citations in English-language journals. The abstracts of these articles were reviewed and 131 articles were selected for possible clinical relevance, of which 34 were determined to be relevant to the assessment objectives.
RESULTS: The most common complications from DSEK among reviewed reports included posterior graft dislocations (mean, 14%; range, 0%-82%), followed by endothelial graft rejection (mean, 10%; range, 0%-45%), primary graft failure (mean, 5%; range, 0%-29%), and iatrogenic glaucoma (mean, 3%; range, 0%-15%). Average endothelial cell loss as measured by specular microscopy ranged from 25% to 54%, with an average cell loss of 37% at 6 months, and from 24% to 61%, with an average cell loss of 42% at 12 months. The average best-corrected Snellen visual acuity (mean, 9 months; range, 3-21 months) ranged from 20/34 to 20/66. A review of postoperative refractive results found induced hyperopia ranging from 0.7 to 1.5 diopters (D; mean, 1.1 D), with minimal induced astigmatism ranging from -0.4 to 0.6 D and a mean refractive shift of 0.11 D. A review of graft survival found that clear grafts at 1 year ranged from 55% to 100% (mean, 94%).
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence reviewed is supportive of DSEK being a safe and effective treatment for endothelial diseases of the cornea. In terms of surgical risks, complication rates, graft survival (clarity), visual acuity, and endothelial cell loss, DSEK appears similar to penetrating keratoplasty (PK). It seems to be superior to PK in terms of earlier visual recovery, refractive stability, postoperative refractive outcomes, wound and suture-related complications, and intraoperative and late suprachoroidal hemorrhage risk. The most common complications of DSEK do not appear to be detrimental to the ultimate vision recovery in most cases. Long-term endothelial cell survival and the risk of late endothelial rejection are beyond the scope of this assessment. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19643492     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.021

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


  148 in total

1.  [Glaucoma and corneal transplantation].

Authors:  G Geerling; M Müller; M Zierhut; T Klink
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Machine learning for segmenting cells in corneal endothelium images.

Authors:  Chaitanya Kolluru; Beth A Benetz; Naomi Joseph; Harry J Menegay; Jonathan H Lass; David Wilson
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2019-03-13

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

Review 4.  Surgical strategies to improve visual outcomes in corneal transplantation.

Authors:  M S Rajan
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 5.  Concise review: immunological properties of ocular surface and importance of limbal stem cells for transplantation.

Authors:  Bakiah Shaharuddin; Sajjad Ahmad; Annette Meeson; Simi Ali
Journal:  Stem Cells Transl Med       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 6.940

6.  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

7.  Comparison of proliferative capacity of genetically-engineered pig and human corneal endothelial cells.

Authors:  Minoru Fujita; Ruhina Mehra; Seung Eun Lee; Danny S Roh; Cassandra Long; James L Funderburgh; David L Ayares; David K C Cooper; Hidetaka Hara
Journal:  Ophthalmic Res       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 2.892

8.  A 5-year analysis of endothelial vs penetrating keratoplasty graft survival in Chinese patients.

Authors:  Anita Lai Wah Li; Rachel Pui Wai Kwok; Ka Wai Kam; Alvin Lerrmann Young
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 1.779

9.  Evaluation of factors affecting visual acuity after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.

Authors:  Shiro Amano; Akira Setogawa; Kenji Inoue
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-12-10       Impact factor: 2.447

10.  Intraocular pressure elevation and post-DMEK glaucoma following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.

Authors:  Anna-Karina B Maier; Tina Wolf; Enken Gundlach; Matthias K J Klamann; Johannes Gonnermann; Eckart Bertelmann; Antonia M Joussen; Necip Torun
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 3.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.