• Ophthalmology · Nov 2015

    Comparative Study

    The First 100 Eyes of Standardized Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Standardized Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty.

    • Ebru C Hamzaoglu, Michael D Straiko, Zachary M Mayko, Christopher S Sáles, and Mark A Terry.
    • Cornea Department, Devers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon.
    • Ophthalmology. 2015 Nov 1; 122 (11): 2193-9.

    PurposeTo compare results of the first 100 eyes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) that were performed with a standardized technique at a single institution.DesignSingle-center, retrospective case series.ParticipantsThe first 100 eyes of standardized DSAEK and DMEK that underwent surgery for Fuchs corneal dystrophy at our center. We excluded patients with prior ocular surgery other than cataract surgery to limit confounding variables.MethodsBest spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA; in logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution [logMAR] units) was obtained and specular microscopy of donor corneal tissue was performed before surgery. Postoperative complications, BSCVA, and the percent of endothelial cell loss (ECL) recorded at 6 months were compared with the Student t test. Patients with pre-existing ocular comorbidity that impacted visual potential such as macular degeneration, amblyopia, advanced glaucoma, and other optic neuropathies were excluded from the analysis of visual acuity, but were included for the outcomes of complications and ECL.Main Outcome MeasuresVisual acuity improvement, ECL 6 months after surgery, postoperative complications, iatrogenic primary graft failure (IPGF), and rebubbling.ResultsOf the 200 eyes, 62 DSAEK eyes and 70 DMEK eyes had 6-month BSCVA available and no vision-limiting comorbidities. Mean BSCVA increased from 0.41±0.19 logMAR and 0.27±0.11 logMAR before surgery to 0.20±0.13 logMAR and 0.11±0.13 logMAR 6 months after DSAEK and DMEK, respectively (P<0.001). Seventy-one DSAEK eyes and 70 DMEK eyes had 6-month ECL data available: ECL was 25.9±14.0% after DSAEK and 27.9±16.0% after DMEK (P=0.38). There were no IPGFs in the DSAEK cohort and there were 4 of 100 IPGFs after DMEK (P=0.12). Rebubbling was performed in 2 of 100 eyes after DSAEK and in 6 of 100 eyes after DMEK (P=0.28).ConclusionsCompared with DSAEK, DMEK provided better visual recovery and comparable 6-month ECL. The DMEK group had a higher, although not statistically significant, percentage of rebubbling procedures and IPGFs.Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.