To compare the difference of long-term clinical outcomes between eye bank prepared pre-loaded (pl)-DMEK (endo-in technique) and pre-cut (pc)-ultra-thin (UT)-DSAEK grafts.
Method
In this retrospective single center interventional case series, patients were treated for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) using pl-DMEK (n=47) and pc-UT-DSAEK grafts (n=42). The grafts were prepared, loaded and transported in an IOL cartridge (pl-DMEK) or in the storage media (pc-UT-DSAEK) by a single eye-bank. All the grafts were delivered by a single surgeon using bimanual pull-through technique. Post-operative outcomes were monitored up to 3 years. The main outcome measures were early post-operative complications, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and endothelial cell density (ECD) at years 1, 2 and 3.
Result
pl-DMEK showed a significantly higher rebubbling rate (21.3%) compared to pc-UT-DSAEK (4.8%; p < 0.001). pl-DMEK group showed a significant improvement in visual acuity (logMAR) at years 1 (0.06 vs 0.13), 2 (0.05 vs 0.12) and 3 (0.05 vs 0.12) (p < 0.05) compared to the pc-UT-DSAEK group. Mean endothelial cell density (cells/mm2) of pl-DMEK grafts did not differ (p > 0.05) compared to pc-UT-DSAEK grafts at year 1 (1745 vs 1789), year 2 (1553 vs 1495) and year 3 (1422 vs 1280).
Conclusion
Despite higher immediate post-operative complications in pl-DMEK, long-term clinical outcomes remain comparable or better than pc-UT-DSAEK grafts. Eye bank prepared grafts are therefore safe and reliable for challenging EK procedures.
FrigoFasoloCapuzzo , et al.Corneal transplantation activity over 7 years: changing trends for indications, patient demographics and surgical techniques from the Corneal Transplant Epidemiological Study (CORTES). Transplant Proc2015 Mar; 47: 528–535.
2.
Eye Bank Association of America Statistical Report 2019.
3.
LiJYTerryMAGosheJ, et al.Three-year visual acuity outcomes after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology2012 Jun; 119: 1126–1129.
4.
NeffKDBiberJMHollandEJ. Comparison of central corneal graft thickness to visual acuity outcomes in endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2011 Apr; 30: 388–391.
5.
AhmedKAMcLarenJWBaratzKH, et al.Host and graft thickness after Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Am J Ophthalmol2010 Oct; 150: 490–497.e2.
6.
BusinMPatelAKScorciaV,et al.Microkeratome-assisted preparation of ultrathin grafts for descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2012 Jan 31; 53: 521–524.
7.
DengSXLeeWBHammersmithKM, et al.Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology2018 Feb; 125: 295–310.
8.
ParekhMBaruzzoMFavaroE, et al.Standardizing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft preparation method in the eye bank-experience of 527 Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissues. Cornea2017 Dec; 36: 1458–1466.
9.
ZafarSParkerJSde KortC, et al.Perceived difficulties and barriers to uptake of Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty among surgeons. Clin Ophthalmol2019; 13: 1055–1061.
10.
BusinMLeonPScorciaV,et al.Contact Lens-assisted pull-through technique for delivery of tri-folded (endothelium in) DMEK grafts minimizes surgical time and cell loss. Ophthalmology2016 Mar; 123: 476–483.
11.
MuraineMGueudryJHeZ, et al.Novel technique for the preparation of corneal grafts for descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol2013 Nov; 156: 851–859.
12.
ParekhMRuzzaAFerrariS, et al.Endothelium-in versus endothelium-out for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft preparation and implantation. Acta Ophthalmol2017 Mar; 95: 194–198.
13.
HoJJungHBanittM. Quantitative and qualitative differences in endothelial cell loss between endothelium-in versus endothelium-out loading in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2020 Mar; 39: 358–361.
14.
ChongEWBandeiraFFinnP, et al.Evaluation of total donor endothelial viability after endothelium-inward versus endothelium-outward loading and insertion in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2020 Jan; 39: 104–109.
15.
PriceMOLisekMKelleyM, et al.Endothelium-in versus endothelium-out insertion with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2018 Sep; 37: 1098–1101.
16.
ParekhMPedrottiEViolaP, et al.Factors affecting the success rate of preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with endothelium-inward technique: a multicenter clinical study. Am J Ophthalmol2022 Sep; 241: 272–281.
17.
BusinMLeonPD’AngeloS, et al.Clinical outcomes of preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts with endothelium tri-folded inwards. Am J Ophthalmol2018 Sep; 193: 106–113.
18.
ParekhMRuzzaAFerrariS, et al.Preloaded tissues for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol2016 Jun; 166: 120–125.
19.
YuACMyerscoughJSpenaR, et al.Three-year outcomes of tri-folded endothelium-in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with pull-through technique. Am J Ophthalmol2020 Nov; 219: 121–131.
20.
RiddlesworthTDKollmanCLassJH, et al.A mathematical model to predict endothelial cell density following penetrating keratoplasty with selective dropout from graft failure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2014 Nov 25; 55: 8409–8415.
21.
BusinMMadiSSantorumP, et al.Ultrathin descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the microkeratome double-pass technique: two-year outcomes. Ophthalmology2013 Jun; 120: 1186–1194.
22.
PriceMOFairchildKMPriceFW. Comparison of manual and automated endothelial cell density analysis in normal eyes and DSEK eyes. Cornea2013 May; 32: 567–573.
23.
PriceDAKelleyMPriceFW,et al.Five-Year graft survival of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (EK) versus Descemet stripping EK and the effect of donor sex matching. Ophthalmology2018 Oct; 125: 1508–1514.
24.
BirbalRSNi DhubhghaillSBourgonjeVJA, et al.Five-Year graft survival and clinical outcomes of 500 consecutive cases after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2020 Mar; 39: 290–297.
25.
MadiSLeonPNahumY, et al.Five-Year outcomes of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2019 Sep; 38: 1192–1197.
RomanoVPaganoLGadhviKA, et al.Clinical outcomes of pre-loaded ultra-thin DSAEK and pre-loaded DMEK. BMJ Open Ophthalmol2020; 5: e000546.
28.
ChamberlainWLinCCAustinA, et al.Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: a randomized trial comparing ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology2019 Jan; 126: 19–26.
29.
DunkerSLDickmanMMWisseRPL, et al.Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Ophthalmology2020 Sep; 127: 1152–1159.
30.
LandryHAminianAHoffartL, et al.Corneal endothelial toxicity of air and SF6. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2011 Apr 8; 52: 2279–2286.
31.
Einan-LifshitzASorkinNBoutinT, et al.Comparison of Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and air tamponade in noniridectomized Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2018 Mar; 37: 273–276.
BöhringerDReinhardT. Prognosis in repeat keratoplasty: per indication analysis in a large monocentric cohort. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd2008 Jan; 225: 50–56.
34.
MitryDBhogalMPatelAK, et al.Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty: survival, rejection risk, and visual outcome. JAMA Ophthalmol2014 Jun; 132: 742–749.
35.
GüellJLMorralMGrisO, et al.Comparison of Sulfur hexafluoride 20% versus air tamponade in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology2015 Sep; 122: 1757–1764.
36.
SchaubFEndersPSnijdersK, et al.One-year outcome after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) comparing sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 20% versus 100% air for anterior chamber tamponade. Br J Ophthalmol2017 Jul; 101: 902–908.
37.
RomanoVParekhMRuzzaA, et al.Comparison of preservation and transportation protocols for preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol2018 Apr; 102: 549–555.
38.
RomanoVKazailiAPaganoL, et al.Eye bank versus surgeon prepared DMEK tissues: influence on adhesion and re-bubbling rate. Br J Ophthalmol2022 Feb; 106: 177–183.
39.
RomanoVParekhMKazailiA, et al.Eye bank versus surgeon prepared Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty tissues: influence on adhesion force in a pilot study. Indian J Ophthalmol2022 Feb; 70: 523–528.
40.
PottsLBBauerAJXuDN, et al.The last 200 surgeon-loaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissue versus the first 200 preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissue. Cornea2020 Oct; 39: 1261–1266.
41.
NewmanLRDeMillDLZeidenweberDA, et al.Preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty donor tissue: surgical technique and early clinical results. Cornea2018 Aug; 37: 981–986.
42.
BöhmMSWylegalaALeonP, et al.One-Year clinical outcomes of preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus non-preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2021 Mar 1; 40: 311–319.
43.
WojcikGParekhMRomanoV, et al.Preloaded DMEK with endothelium outward: A multicenter clinical study using DMEK rapid device. Cornea2023 Mar 24.
44.
JuratliLQureshiSLilesN, et al.Clinical outcomes of prestripped, prestained, and preloaded Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (“P3 DMEK”). Taiwan J Ophthalmol2023; 13: 55–61.
45.
ParekhMLeonPRuzzaA, et al.Graft detachment and rebubbling rate in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Surv Ophthalmol2018; 63: 245–250.
46.
LeonPParekhMNahumY, et al.Factors associated with early graft detachment in primary Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol2018 Mar; 187: 117–124.
