Literature DB >> 23466268

Ultrathin descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the microkeratome double-pass technique: two-year outcomes.

Massimo Busin1, Silvana Madi, Paolo Santorum, Vincenzo Scorcia, Jacqueline Beltz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes and graft survival rates after ultrathin (UT) Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) using the microkeratome-assisted double-pass technique.
DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive, interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with endothelial decompensation of various causes (Fuchs endothelial dystrophy, pseudophakic or aphakic bullous keratopathy, failed previous graft, herpetic endotheliitis, or buphthalmus; n = 285 grafts). INTERVENTION: Donor preparation was performed using the microkeratome-assisted double-pass technique. Stripping of the Descemet's membrane was performed under air and the graft was delivered into the anterior chamber using the pull-through technique through a 3-mm clear-cornea incision using a modified Busin glide. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), manifest refraction, endothelial cell density, and graft thickness (GT).
RESULTS: Excluding all eyes with pre-existing ocular comorbidities, mean BSCVA at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 0.16, 0.11, 0.08, and 0.04 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution units, respectively. The percentage of patients achieving BSCVA of 20/20 or better at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 12.3%, 26.3%, 39.5%, and 48.8%, respectively. A statistically significant (P < 0.0001) hyperopic shift of 0.78 ± 0.59 diopters (D; range, -0.75 to 1.75 D) was found at 1 year. The endothelial cell loss at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 29.8 ± 14.3%, 33 ± 15.5%, 35.6 ± 14.1%, and 36.6 ± 16.0%, respectively. The mean central GT recorded 3 months after surgery was 78.28 ± 28.89 μm. Complications included microkeratome failure to achieve perfect dissection in 21 donor tissues (7.2%), with 6 (2.1%) being discarded; total graft detachment in 11 cases (3.9%); primary failure in 4 cases (1.4%); and secondary failure in 4 additional cases (1.4%). Kaplan-Meier cumulative probability of a rejection episode at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 0%, 0.4%, 2.4%, and 3.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The visual outcomes of UT DSAEK are comparable with those published for Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty and better than those reported after DSAEK in terms of both speed of visual recovery and percentage of patients with 20/20 final visual acuity. However, unlike with Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty, preparation and delivery of donor tissue are neither difficult nor time consuming. Complications of UT DSAEK do not differ substantially from those recorded with standard DSAEK but are much less frequent than those reported after Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23466268     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.030

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


  41 in total

Review 1.  [Treatment of corneal endothelial disorders by DMEK and UT-DSAEK. Indications, complications, results and follow-up].

Authors:  B Bachmann; F Schaub; C Cursiefen
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.059

2.  Endothelial keratoplasty: is Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty the Holy Grail of lamellar surgery? No.

Authors:  M Tsatsos; V S Liarakos; C MacGregor; I Athanasiadis; E T Detorakis; M M Moschos; P Hossain; D F Anderson
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 3.775

3.  Endothelial keratoplasty: is Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty the way forward? Yes.

Authors:  V S Liarakos; M Tsatsos; M Satue; G R J Melles
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Corneal densitometry patterns in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet stripping automated keratoplasty.

Authors:  Jorge Peraza-Nieves; José-María Sánchez-González; Carlos Rocha-de-Lossada; Rahul Rachwani-Anil; Miriam Sánchez-Valera; Davide Borroni; Josep Torras-Sanvicens
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-24       Impact factor: 2.031

5.  Nomogram for single-pass automated microkeratome graft preparation for ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.

Authors:  Álvaro Sánchez-Ventosa; Antonio Cano-Ortiz; Pablo Morales; Timoteo González-Cruces; Vanesa Díaz Mesa; Alberto Villarrubia
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 2.031

6.  Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in phakic eyes: incision modification reducing cataract formation.

Authors:  Jacqueline Beltz; Silvana Madi; Yoav Nahum; Paolo Santorum; Massimo Busin
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 1.779

7.  Clinical outcome of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in 18 cases with iridocorneal endothelial syndrome.

Authors:  M Ao; Y Feng; G Xiao; Y Xu; J Hong
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 3.775

8.  Bilateral Ultrathin Descemet's Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty vs. Bilateral Penetrating Keratoplasty in Fuchs' Dystrophy: Corneal Higher-Order Aberrations, Contrast Sensitivity and Quality of Life.

Authors:  Massimo Castellucci; Costanza Novara; Alessandra Casuccio; Giovannni Cillino; Carla Giordano; Valentina Failla; Vincenza Bonfiglio; Maria Vadalà; Salvatore Cillino
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 2.430

Review 9.  Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure.

Authors:  Alastair J Stuart; Vito Romano; Gianni Virgili; Alex J Shortt
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-06-25

Review 10.  Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy: The vicious cycle of Fuchs pathogenesis.

Authors:  Stephan Ong Tone; Viridiana Kocaba; Myriam Böhm; Adam Wylegala; Tomas L White; Ula V Jurkunas
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 21.198

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.