Sebastian Siebelmann1,2, Uta Gehlsen3,4, Carolin Le Blanc3,4, Tisha Prabriputaloong Stanzel3, Claus Cursiefen3, Philipp Steven3,4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Kerpener Strasse 62, 50924, Cologne, Germany. Sebastian.Siebelmann@uk-koeln.de. 2. Cluster of Excellence: Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-associated Diseases (CECAD), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Sebastian.Siebelmann@uk-koeln.de. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Kerpener Strasse 62, 50924, Cologne, Germany. 4. Cluster of Excellence: Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-associated Diseases (CECAD), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Correct early graft attachment is believed to be crucial for final visual outcome after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Nonetheless, it is not yet known which imaging technique gives superior results for examining early postoperative graft adherence status. We compared imaging data taken with two different OCT devices to examine the development of graft adherence immediately after DMEK and to determine the superior device in terms of visualization of graft adherence. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients (1 man/9 women) were examined three times postoperatively within the first 7 h after DMEK surgery using spectral domain OCT (SD-OCT) and time domain OCT (TD-OCT), as prospective case series and retrospective image data analyses. The parameters analyzed were localization and number, visibility and size of graft detachments. RESULTS: TD-OCT was able to detect a greater number of graft detachments after DMEK; however, SD-OCT provided better resolution of minor detachments. Graft detachments varied in position and degree at different time points immediately after surgery. All patients had some graft detachment within the first 7 h after DMEK surgery. CONCLUSIONS: TD-OCT enabled better overall analysis of graft detachments, even in the periphery, whereas SD-OCT allowed for the detection of even minor detachments, which suggests that a combination of the two techniques is optimal. Our results indicate that dynamic processes affecting the DMEK graft immediately after transplantation are responsible for changes in the attachment of donor tissue at an early postoperative stage. Modulation of early graft attachment may improve the final graft attachment.
PURPOSE: Correct early graft attachment is believed to be crucial for final visual outcome after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Nonetheless, it is not yet known which imaging technique gives superior results for examining early postoperative graft adherence status. We compared imaging data taken with two different OCT devices to examine the development of graft adherence immediately after DMEK and to determine the superior device in terms of visualization of graft adherence. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients (1 man/9 women) were examined three times postoperatively within the first 7 h after DMEK surgery using spectral domain OCT (SD-OCT) and time domain OCT (TD-OCT), as prospective case series and retrospective image data analyses. The parameters analyzed were localization and number, visibility and size of graft detachments. RESULTS: TD-OCT was able to detect a greater number of graft detachments after DMEK; however, SD-OCT provided better resolution of minor detachments. Graft detachments varied in position and degree at different time points immediately after surgery. All patients had some graft detachment within the first 7 h after DMEK surgery. CONCLUSIONS: TD-OCT enabled better overall analysis of graft detachments, even in the periphery, whereas SD-OCT allowed for the detection of even minor detachments, which suggests that a combination of the two techniques is optimal. Our results indicate that dynamic processes affecting the DMEK graft immediately after transplantation are responsible for changes in the attachment of donor tissue at an early postoperative stage. Modulation of early graft attachment may improve the final graft attachment.
Authors: G Hüttmann; E Lankenau; C Schulz-Wackerbarth; M Müller; P Steven; R Birngruber Journal: Klin Monbl Augenheilkd Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 0.700
Authors: M Mueller; C Schulz-Wackerbarth; P Steven; E Lankenau; T Bonin; H Mueller; A Brueggemann; R Birngruber; S Grisanti; G Huettmann Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Frederico P Guerra; Arundhati Anshu; Marianne O Price; Arthur W Giebel; Francis W Price Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Friedrich E Kruse; Kathrin Laaser; Claus Cursiefen; Ludwig M Heindl; Ursula Schlötzer-Schrehardt; Stephan Riss; Björn O Bachmann Journal: Cornea Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: M Matthaei; S Schrittenlocher; D Hos; S Siebelmann; F Bucher; F Schaub; R Hoerster; R Siggel; S Roters; L M Heindl; B Bachmann; C Cursiefen Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 1.059