Identifying causes for poor visual outcome after DSEK/DSAEK following secondary DMEK in the same eye

作者: Martin Dirisamer , Jack Parker , Miguel Naveiras , Vasilios S. Liarakos , Lisanne Ham

DOI: 10.1111/J.1755-3768.2012.02504.X

关键词: Optical qualityCorneal pachymetryCorneal topographyVisual axisCorneal transplantationVisual acuityDescemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyCorneaSurgeryMedicine

摘要: . Purpose:  To identify causes of reduced visual acuity after Descemet stripping (automated) endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK/DSAEK) and to determine whether such eyes can be successfully ‘repaired’ with a secondary membrane (DMEK). Methods:  Twelve 12 patients, who underwent DMEK manage poor outcome initial DSEK/DSAEK, were evaluated biomicroscopy, Pentacam imaging, specular confocal microscopy, before at 1, 3 6 months DMEK. Results:  Four optical quality the transplanted host cornea could identified in DSEK/DSAEK: five (42%) showed large host-Descemet remnants within axis during surgery; six (50%) irregular graft thickness; subtle ‘stromal waves’; nine (75%) high reflectivity donor-to-host interface. After replacement, all corneas cleared achieved best corrected ≥20/25 (≥0.8), except for one partial detachment. Pachymetry values decreased from 670 (±112) μm 517 (±57) μm DMEK. Higher-order aberrations (Coma Trefoil) posterior surface tended lower (p = 0.07) grafts than DSEK/DSAEK grafts. Conclusion:  Host-Descemet interface, interface reflectivity, thickness irregularity donor stromal contraction may contribute without causing permanent corneal damage, as most cases, complete recovery by performing

参考文章(30)
W. Barry Lee, Deborah S. Jacobs, David C. Musch, Stephen C. Kaufman, William J. Reinhart, Roni M. Shtein, Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty: Safety and Outcomes Ophthalmology. ,vol. 116, pp. 1818- 1830 ,(2009) , 10.1016/J.OPHTHA.2009.06.021
Frederico P. Guerra, Arundhati Anshu, Marianne O. Price, Arthur W. Giebel, Francis W. Price, Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. ,vol. 118, pp. 2368- 2373 ,(2011) , 10.1016/J.OPHTHA.2011.06.002
Keryn A Williams, , Sylvia M Muehlberg, Rowena F Lewis, Douglas J Coster, How successful is corneal transplantation? A report from the Australian corneal graft register Eye. ,vol. 9, pp. 219- 227 ,(1995) , 10.1038/EYE.1995.43
Jessica T. Lie, Rénuka Birbal, Lisanne Ham, Jacqueline van der Wees, Gerrit R.J. Melles, Donor tissue preparation for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. ,vol. 34, pp. 1578- 1583 ,(2008) , 10.1016/J.JCRS.2008.05.036
Edwin S Chen, Mark A Terry, Neda Shamie, Karen L Hoar, Daniel J Friend, Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: six-month results in a prospective study of 100 eyes. Cornea. ,vol. 27, pp. 514- 520 ,(2008) , 10.1097/ICO.0B013E3181611C50
Irit Bahar, Igor Kaiserman, Penny McAllum, Allan Slomovic, David Rootman, Comparison of Posterior Lamellar Keratoplasty Techniques to Penetrating Keratoplasty Ophthalmology. ,vol. 115, pp. 1525- 1533 ,(2008) , 10.1016/J.OPHTHA.2008.02.010
Marianne O Price, Francis W Price, Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. ,vol. 18, pp. 290- 294 ,(2007) , 10.1097/ICU.0B013E3281A4775B