The present study aims to evaluate the survival rate outcomes of The Femtosecond laser assisted Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (FS-UT-DSAEK) over a 6-year period in addition to other outcome measures.
Material and methods
A retrospective study of 100 eyes with endothelial decompensation from various causes was studied. The Femtosecond laser assisted technique was used to prepare donor tissue with a graft thickness of 100 μm. We evaluated the rate of graft loss, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), graft survival rate, immunologic rejection rates and any intra or postoperative complications.
Results
The mean age of the participants was 63.86 years, the sex distribution showed that 61.9% of the participants were females, and 38% were males. The highest proportion of cases (56.5%) was associated with PBK. Most of eyes underwent the DSAEK procedure alone, accounting for 86%. Kaplan-Meier graft survival probability at 1 and 6 years was 93.1% and 86.9%, respectively. Statistical analysis using t-tests revealed that all comparisons between the pre- and subsequent BCVA measurements were statistically significant. Primary graft failure was observed in 8% and the most common complication was graft detachment, which was observed in 10%.
Conclusion
Up to our knowledge, we reported the longest follow up of FS-UT-DSAEK in the literature. Our data showed an excellent survival rate and complication profile with no clear harmful effect on the endothelium from laser preparation. However, the visual outcomes in comparison to MK-UT-DSAEK still is questionable and needs to be addressed with randomized trials.
BusinMPatelAKScorciaV, et al.Microkeratome-assisted preparation of ultrathin grafts for descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2012; 53: 521–524. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-7753
8.
JonesYJGoinsKMSutphinJE, et al.Comparison of the femtosecond laser (IntraLase) versus manual microkeratome (Moria ALTK) in dissection of the donor in endothelial keratoplasty: initial study in eye bank eyes. Cornea2008; 27: 88–93. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31815771f5
9.
MoothaVVHeckEVeritySM, et al.Comparative study of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty donor preparation by Moria CBm microkeratome, horizon microkeratome, and Intralase FS60. Cornea2011; 30: 320–324. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181f22cc3
10.
PatelSVBaratzKHHodgeDO, et al.The effect of corneal light scatter on vision after descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol2009; 127: 153–160. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2008.581
11.
BusinMMadiSSantorumP, et al.Ultrathin descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the microkeratome double-pass technique: two-year outcomes. Ophthalmology2013; 120: 1186–1194. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.030
12.
HjortdalJNielsenEVestergaardA, et al.Inverse cutting of posterior lamellar corneal grafts by a femtosecond laser. Open Ophthalmol J2012; 6: 19–22. doi: 10.2174/1874364101206010019
13.
SinghKHaydariNBrunetteI, et al.Preparing uniform-thickness corneal endothelial grafts from donor tissues using a non-amplified femtosecond laser. PLoS One2013; 8: e83185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083185
14.
ShilovaNFLivnyEAnisimovaNS, et al.Refractive outcomes following cataract combined with lamellar keratoplasty: femtosecond-DSEK versus microkeratome-DSAEK. Int Ophthalmol2021; 41: 639–647. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01619-7
15.
ChenHTianLLeQ, et al.Femtosecond laser-assisted Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty: a prospective study of 6-month visual outcomes, corneal thickness and endothelial cell loss. Int Ophthalmol2020; 40: 2065–2075. doi: 10.1007/s10792-020-01383-8
16.
TomidaDYamaguchiTOgawaA, et al.Effects of corneal irregular astigmatism on visual acuity after conventional and femtosecond laser-assisted Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Jpn J Ophthalmol2015; 59: 216–222. doi: 10.1007/s10384-015-0388-y
17.
VenturaMAiraldiMAnconaC, et al.Preoperative posterior stromal ripples as predictive biomarkers of visual recovery after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2024; 44: 976–982. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003698
18.
LeeWBJacobsDSMuschDC, et al.Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology2009; 116: 1818–1830. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.021
NieuwendaalCPLapid-GortzakRvan der MeulenIJ, et al.Posterior lamellar keratoplasty using descemetorhexis and organ-cultured donor corneal tissue (Melles technique). Cornea2006; 25: 933–936. doi: 10.1097/01.ico.0000239002.92989.1a
21.
DickmanMMKruitPJRemeijerL, et al.A randomized multicenter clinical trial of ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) versus DSAEK. Ophthalmology2016; 123: 2276–2284. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.07.036
22.
MadiSLeonPNahumY, et al.Five-Year outcomes of ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2019; 38: 1192–1197. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001999
23.
SuhLHYooSHDeobhaktaA, et al.Complications of descemet's stripping with automated endothelial keratoplasty: survey of 118 eyes at one institute. Ophthalmology2008; 115: 1517–1524. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.01.024
24.
ChamberlainWLinCCAustinA, et al.Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: a randomized trial comparing ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology2019; 126: 19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.05.019
25.
FuLHollickEJ. Comparison of long-term outcomes of DSEK and DMEK in fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cornea2024; 43: 184–189. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003310
26.
AngMSohYHtoonHM, et al.Five-Year graft survival comparing descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology2016; 123: 1646–1652. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.04.049
27.
RomanoVTeyAHillNM, et al.Influence of graft size on graft survival following descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol2015; 99: 784–788. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305648
28.
HeinzelmannSMaierPBöhringerD, et al.Visual outcome and histological findings following femtosecond laser-assisted versus microkeratome-assisted DSAEK. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2013; 251: 1979–1985. doi: 10.1007/s00417-013-2359-7
29.
JansenCZetterbergM. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated keratoplasty - outcome of one single surgeon's more than 200 initial consecutive cases. Clin Ophthalmol2021; 15: 909–921. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S289730
30.
RosenwasserGOSzczotka-FlynnLBAyalaAR, et al.Effect of Cornea preservation time on success of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol2017; 135: 1401–1409. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.4989
SchaubFEndersPRotersS, et al.Single-pass ultrathin DSAEK (UT-DSAEK) with the SLc expert microkeratome®. Acta Ophthalmol2017; 95: e160–e161. doi: 10.1111/aos.13211
33.
MarquesREGuerraPSSousaDC, et al.DMEK Versus DSAEK for Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy: a meta-analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol2019; 29: 15–22. doi: 10.1177/1120672118757431
34.
AnshuAPriceMOPriceFWJr. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012; 119: 536–540. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.09.019.
35.
StultingRDLassJHTerryMA, et al.Factors associated with graft rejection in the Cornea preservation time study. Am J Ophthalmol2018; 196: 197–207. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.10.005
36.
TitiyalJSAravindMJKaurM, et al.Surface quality and endothelial cell viability after femtosecond laser-assisted donor lenticule preparation for endothelial keratoplasty - an in-vitro study. Indian J Ophthalmol2020; 68: 2404–2407. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_99_20
37.
TakemoriHHigashideTKobayashiA, et al.Glaucoma-Related risk factors for endothelial cell loss and graft failure after descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. J Glaucoma2023; 32: e95–e102. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002221
