0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Clinical Sciences |

Efficacy of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Clinical Outcome of 200 Consecutive Cases After a Learning Curve of 25 Cases FREE

Martin Dirisamer, MD; Lisanne Ham, MSc; Isabel Dapena, MD; Kyros Moutsouris, MD; Konstantinos Droutsas, PhD; Korine van Dijk, BSc; Laurence E. Frank, PhD; Silke Oellerich, PhD; Gerrit R. J. Melles, MD, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Netherlands Institute for Innovative Ocular Surgery (Drs Dirisamer, Dapena, Moutsouris, Droutsas, Oellerich, and Melles and Mss Ham and van Dijk), Melles Cornea Clinic Rotterdam (Drs Dirisamer, Dapena, Moutsouris, Droutsas, Oellerich, and Melles and Mss Ham and van Dijk), and Amnitrans Eyebank Rotterdam (Dr Melles and Ms Ham), Rotterdam, and Department of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht (Dr Frank), the Netherlands; and Ophthalmology Department, AKh Linz, Linz, Austria (Dr Dirisamer).


Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(11):1435-1443. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.195.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective To evaluate Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for management of corneal endothelial disorders.

Methods Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty was performed in 200 patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy or bullous keratopathy. Best-corrected visual acuity, subjective and objective refractive outcome and stability, and endothelial cell density were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were documented.

Results At 6 months, 94% reached a best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better (≥0.5); 77%, 20/25 or better (≥0.8); 47%, 20/20 or better (≥1.0), and 16%, 20/17 or better (≥1.2) (n = 159). The preoperative to 6 months' postoperative spherical equivalent showed a mean (SD) +0.38 (1.2) diopter hyperopic shift (P = .001) that correlated with a decrease in central corneal thickness (n = 143) (P = .047). Two-thirds of eyes showed refractive stability at 3 months. Donor endothelial cell density showed a decrease from mean (SD) 2560 (186) cells/mm2 preoperatively to 1690 (520) cells/mm2 at 6 months after surgery (n = 173) (P < .001). Graft detachment was the main complication and occurred in 18 eyes (9%). Recipient Descemet membrane remnants were present in 12 eyes (6%). Secondary glaucoma was seen in 8 eyes (4%), of which 4 showed air-bubble dislocation behind the iris. In 2 of 33 phakic eyes (6%), a secondary cataract developed requiring phacoemulsification.

Conclusions Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty may offer complete visual rehabilitation within 1 to 6 months after surgery in a majority of eyes. Similar to earlier keratoplasty techniques, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty may be associated with a one-third decrease in donor endothelial cell density in the early postoperative phase. Incidence of (partial) graft detachment stabilized at about 5% but could be further reduced by patient selection and/or technique modification.

Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00521898

Figures in this Article

Since 1998, we have introduced various techniques for treatment of corneal endothelial disorders, popularized as deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet stripping (automated) endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK/DSAEK).15 Recently, we described a technique for selective transplant of the Descemet membrane (DM), referred to as Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).1,2

Our initial results showed that if successful, DMEK may enable significantly better visual outcomes than deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty and DSEK/DSAEK6 and faster visual rehabilitation.7 These results have been confirmed by others,8,9 who also reported a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/40 or better (≥0.5) in about 95% of patients and 20/25 or better (≥0.8) in about 60% at 6 months postoperatively. All of these reports included the first DMEK cases performed by these surgeons, so the overall outcome may have been negatively biased by a “learning-curve” effect.

In our initial cases, DMEK was relatively frequently complicated by graft detachment.10,11 Hence, extensive in vitro studies were performed to minimize the risk of detachment and to further standardize the technique to allow its efficacy.12 Hence, our study aimed to evaluate the surgical protocol for standardized “no-touch” DMEK by documenting the clinical outcome of 200 consecutive DMEK cases performed after a first series of 25 learning-curve cases.

Our prospective study included 200 consecutive eyes of 166 patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy or bullous keratopathy who underwent DMEK (Table 1). The 200 cases evaluated were cases 26 to 225 from the first 225 consecutive DMEK surgeries performed by our group, after an initial learning curve of 25 DMEK eyes. The 200 surgeries were (partially) performed by 5 surgeons (M.D., I.D., K.M., K.D., and G.R.J.M.), and in 51 cases, the entire surgery was conducted by the fellow alone. After institutional review board review of the study protocol, all patients signed an institutional review board–approved informed consent; the study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00521898).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Demographics for Patients Who Underwent DMEK
DONOR TISSUE PROTOCOL

A procedure for harvesting of the DM graft has been previously described.13 In short, from donor globes obtained 36 hours or less post mortem, corneoscleral buttons were excised and stored by organ culture at 31°C. After 1 week of culture, endothelial cell morphology and viability were evaluated and the corneoscleral buttons were mounted endothelial side up on a custom-made holder. Being submerged in saline, a 9.5-mm-diameter DM sheet with its endothelium was stripped from the posterior stroma. Because of the elastic tissue properties, a “Descemet roll” formed spontaneously, with the endothelium at the outer side. Each Descemet roll was then stored for 5 to 10 days in organ culture medium until the time of transplant.13

SURGICAL PROTOCOL

All eyes were operated on under local anesthesia (4 mL of ropivacaine hydrochloride, 1%, with 150 IE of Hyason), followed by ocular massage and application of a Honan balloon for 10 minutes, and the patient was positioned in an anti-Trendelenburg position.

Surgeries were performed as previously described.12 A 3.0-mm tunnel incision was made at the limbus, the anterior chamber was filled with air, and a circular portion of DM was scored with an inversed Sinskey hook (DORC International, Zuidland, the Netherlands) and stripped from the posterior stroma so that a 9.0-mm-diameter descemetorhexis was created.14

The donor Descemet roll was stained with a trypan blue solution, 0.06% (VisionBlue; DORC International), and sucked into a custom-made injector (DMEK inserter; DORC International) to inject the Descemet roll into the recipient anterior chamber and the graft was oriented endothelial side down (donor DM facing recipient posterior stroma) by indirect manipulation with air and balanced salt solution.12 The graft was then gently spread out over the iris, and an air bubble was injected underneath the graft to position it onto the recipient posterior stroma.12 The anterior chamber was left completely filled with air for 30 to 60 minutes followed by an air-liquid exchange to pressurize the eye. Each surgical procedure was recorded on DVD (DVR-RT601H-S; Pioneer, Tokyo, Japan).

In all eyes, a YAG laser peripheral iridotomy was made at the 12-o’clock position 1 to 2 weeks before the surgery to reduce the potential risk of pupillary block glaucoma after surgery due to the 30% to 50% air bubble in the anterior chamber. Because patients were requested to lie in a supine position after surgery (with the Bell phenomenon rotating the eye upward on eye closure), the iridotomy was made at the 12-o’clock position.

MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICS

Donor endothelial cell density (ECD) was evaluated in vitro (Axiovert 40 inverted light microscope; Zeiss, Göttingen, Germany) and photographed (PixeLINK PL-A662; Zeiss).13 In patient eyes, ECD was evaluated in vivo using a Topcon SP3000p noncontact autofocus specular microscope (Topcon Medical Europe BV, Capelle a/d IJssel, the Netherlands). Images of the central corneal window were manually corrected and 3 measurements were averaged.

All recipient eyes were examined before and after DMEK at 1, 3, and 6 months with biomicroscopy, Pentacam imaging (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany), noncontact specular microscopy, and slitlamp photography (Topcon Medical Europe BV). Best-corrected visual acuity, ECD, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded in a database.

For all comparisons, 2-sided paired-sample t tests were performed (SPSS version 18.0; IBM SPSS, Chicago, Illinois). P values for the Pentacam and refractive data were corrected with the Benjamini and Hochberg correction (multiple tests increase false positives).15 After correction, all P values <.05 represented statistical significance. The relation between the change in spherical equivalent (SE) and central corneal thickness (induced hyperopic shift) was estimated with the Pearson correlation.

DEMOGRAPHICS

The first 200 consecutive DMEK cases were evaluated. Hence, surgical cases 26 to 225 were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, 33 (17%) of them with phakic eyes (Table 1). In patients with phakic eyes referred to us for combined cataract extraction and DMEK, phacoemulsification was performed 1 to 2 months prior to the transplant. Postphacoemulsification measurements were used as preoperative DMEK refractive data to avoid bias related to the margin of error in the refractive effect after intraocular lens implantation.

BEST-CORRECTED VISUAL ACUITY

From a total of 200 eyes, 41 were excluded from visual acuity analysis: 23 had low visual potential, 12 had secondary DSEK performed after DMEK failure, 4 showed spontaneous corneal clearance despite graft detachment,16 and 2 had incomplete measurements (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Analysis of Clinical Outcome of DMEK in 200 Eyes

At 6 months, all but 9 eyes (94%) reached a BCVA of 20/40 or better (≥0.5); 77%, 20/25 or better (≥0.8); 47%, 20/20 or better (≥1.0); and 16%, 20/17 or better (≥1.2) (n = 159) (Figure 1) (Table 3). At 1 month, these percentages were 85%, 53%, 22%, and 3%, respectively, and at 3 months, 92%, 65%, 36%, and 6% (Figure 1) (Table 3). In 23 patients under the 20/25 (0.8) level, the BCVA changed 2 or more lines from the 3 to the 6 months' examination: 21 eyes (91%) improved and 2 (9%) deteriorated. The latter 2 had a decrease from 20/28 (0.7) to 20/50 (0.4) and 20/20 (1.0) to 20/28 (0.7) without an apparent cause.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Graph displaying the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) before (Preop) and at 1, 3, and 6 months after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) surgery.

SE OF SUBJECTIVE REFRACTION

From 143 patients with a preoperative BCVA of at least counting fingers, refractive data were available at all follow-up intervals (Table 4). Because the reliability of refraction may be compromised by low visual acuity, we performed the same analysis for the 115 eyes with a preoperative BCVA of 20/60 or better (≥0.3), but similar correlations were found (Table 5).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Subjective Refractive Outcome of DMEK in 143 Eyes With a Preoperative BCVA of at Least CF (≥1/60)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Subjective Refractive Outcome of DMEK in 115 Eyes With a Preoperative BCVA of 20/60 or Better (≥0.3)

For the whole group (n = 143), the mean (SD) preoperative to postoperative change in SE (hyperopic and myopic shifts in corneal power averaged) was +0.49 (1.2) diopter (D) (P < .001) at 3 months and +0.38 (1.2) D (P = .001) at 6 months (Table 4). The mean (SD) preoperative to postoperative absolute change in SE (absolute change in corneal power) was 0.96 (0.8) D at 3 months and 0.90 (0.8) D at 6 months (Table 4). For the group of 115 eyes with a preoperative BCVA of 20/60 or better (≥0.3), the data are presented in Table 5.

CYLINDRICAL ERROR OF SUBJECTIVE REFRACTION

For the whole group (n = 143), the mean (SD) preoperative to postoperative change in refractive cylinder (hyperopic and myopic shifts in cylindrical power averaged) was −0.36 (1.2) D (P = .002) at 3 months and −0.29 (1.1) D (P = .006) at 6 months (Table 4). The mean (SD) preoperative to postoperative absolute change in refractive cylinder (absolute change in cylindrical power) was 0.93 (0.8) D at 3 months and 0.91 (0.7) D at 6 months (Table 4). For the group of 115 eyes with a preoperative BCVA of 20/60 or better (≥0.3), the data are presented in Table 5.

STABILITY OF REFRACTION

Refractive stability was analyzed by comparing preoperative with postoperative refraction, as well as 3-month with 6-month postoperative refractions (n = 143). The change in SE before and at 3 months after surgery was 0.5 D or less in 38% and 1.0 D or less in 62% of eyes and at 6 months, 0.5 D or less in 38% and 1.0 D or less in 69% (Table 6). The change in cylindrical error before and at 3 months after surgery was 1.0 D or less in 66% and 2.0 D or less in 94% of eyes and at 6 months, 1.0 D or less in 64% and 2.0 D or less in 95% (Table 6).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Stability of Refraction After DMEK in 143 Eyes

From 3 to 6 months, no significant change in SE (P = .09) or cylindrical error (P = .35) was found (Table 4). Patients were fitted with glasses if desired at 3 months or continued wearing their preoperative glasses. All patients obtained full binocular vision, except for 1 case (monoculus).

OBJECTIVE CORNEAL POWER MEASUREMENTS

Using topographic maps (n = 150), the change in true net power mean (SD) keratometric values before surgery and at 3 months was −1.4 (0.7) D and at 6 months, −1.2 (0.7) D (P < .001) (Table 7). The change in anterior corneal curvature before surgery and at 3 months was −0.5 (0.4) D and at six months, −0.3 (0.4) D (both P < .001) (Figure 2) (Table 7), and the change in posterior corneal curvature before surgery and at 3 months was +0.8 (0.4) D and at 6 months, +0.7 (0.4) D (P < .001) (Figure 2) (Table 7).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Topographic corneal power maps of the anterior corneal curvature (A-C), posterior corneal curvature (D-F), and central corneal thickness (G-I) before Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (Preop) (A, D, and G) and 6 months after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (Postop) (B, E, and H) and the corresponding difference maps (C, F, and I). The anterior corneal curvature is stable, but the posterior curvature does show a change of approximately 1.0 diopter. Compare with Table 7.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 7. Objective Refractive Outcome (Pentacama Measurements) After DMEK in 150 Eyes

Although there was a change from before surgery to 3 months postoperatively, no significant difference in topographic astigmatism was found at the 6-month interval (P = .40) (Table 7).

PACHYMETRY

Central corneal thickness decreased from mean (SD) 675 (94) μm before surgery to 526 (46) μm at 3 months and 527 (50) μm at 6 months (n = 150), ie, a decrease of 149 (48) μm and 148 (44) μm, respectively (P < .001) (Figure 2) (Table 8).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 8. Central Corneal Thickness (Pentacama Measurements) After DMEK in 150 Eyes

A significant negative correlation was found between the preoperative and 6-month central corneal thickness and SE values (n = 126) (r2 = 0.032; P = .047), which represents a small effect (Figure 3).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. Scatterplot displaying the difference in preoperative to 6 months' postoperative central corneal thickness and spherical equivalent, which revealed a significant correlation. D indicates diopters.

ENDOTHELIAL CELL DENSITY

Of the DMEK eyes with an attached Descemet graft, preoperative and postoperative ECD measurements were available in 173 eyes. Mean (SD) donor ECD was 2560 (186) cells/mm2 preoperatively and 1690 (520) cells/mm2 at 6 months after surgery (P < .001) (Table 9).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 9. Donor Endothelial Cell Density Before and After DMEK in 173 Eyes

In all eyes in which graft attachment was obtained, the transplanted cornea cleared within 1 to 12 weeks (Figure 4A and B). No clearance was seen in the presence of a complete graft detachment, eg, a Descemet roll in the recipient anterior chamber (Figure 4C and D), although “spontaneous clearance” despite graft detachment was seen in 4 eyes (Figure 4E and F) (Table 2).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 4. Slitlamp and Scheimpflug images of an eye 1 month after successful Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) surgery (A and B), and another eye 1 and 6 months after DMEK surgery complicated by graft detachment (C-F). Note the near normal corneal anatomy after successful DMEK surgery, while the other eye initially showed corneal decompensation (C and D) (arrows) followed by “spontaneous clearance” of the transplanted cornea despite persistent graft detachment (E and F) (arrows).

INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS

Failure to unfold the Descemet graft in the anterior chamber occurred in 1 case (0.5%) and vitreous pressure was present in 15 cases (7.5%) (Table 10).

In 4 patients with pseudophakic eyes (2%), an intraoperative hemorrhage, originating from the iris root, was caused by traction on the peripupillary iris while positioning an air cannula underneath the unfolded Descemet graft prior to lifting the graft toward the recipient posterior cornea (Table 10).

POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS

None of the transplanted corneas failed to clear in the presence of an attached Descemet graft; in other words, a failure of the transplanted cornea to clear was only seen in the presence of graft detachment. One eye showed a secondary graft failure at 10 months after surgery (Table 10).

Graft detachment was defined as a lack of adherence between the Descemet graft and the recipient posterior stroma (frequently seen as a free-floating Descemet roll in the recipient anterior chamber within the first postoperative week) or a partial lack of adherence requiring secondary surgical intervention (rebubbling or regraft). Overall, 9% (18 of 200) of eyes showed a graft detachment, 4% (8 of 200) a complete and 5% (10 of 200) a partial detachment (Figure 4C and D) (Table 10). Small peripheral detachments occurred in 7% (14 of 200).

Twelve eyes (6%) had recipient DM remnants at the donor-to-host interface after surgery (Figure 5).17 Three eyes (1.5%) of 3 patients developed an allograft rejection. One patient noticed discomfort and a reduced visual acuity, but no subjective complaints were experienced by the other patients, who both had discontinued their steroid medication prematurely (Table 10).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 5. Slitlamp photographs of an eye 1 month after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Note the recipient Descemet membrane remnant (arrows) in the paracentral cornea (A), potentially interfering with the visual acuity (B).

At 3 months after DMEK, 1 eye (0.5%) presented with a small peripheral infiltrate in an area with remnant peripheral corneal edema that resolved with topical antibiotics (Table 10).

Because a 50% air fill of the anterior chamber was maintained at the end of the surgery, the operated-on DMEK eyes were considered at risk to develop pupillary block glaucoma. Hence, a YAG laser iridotomy was made at the 12-o’clock position prior to surgery. Although no true pupillary block glaucoma was observed, secondary glaucoma due to air-bubble dislocation behind the iris and/or mechanical forward displacement of the iris diaphragm occurred in 2% (4 of 200) of eyes (Table 10).

An additional 4 eyes developed another type of secondary glaucoma after DMEK surgery (2% [4 of 200]) (Table 10). One patient with bilateral DMEK developed a steroid-induced glaucoma in both eyes within the first postoperative month. One case with preexisting open-angle glaucoma developed 40–mm Hg spikes after surgery that required additional topical antiglaucoma medication. One eye developed peripheral anterior synechiae resulting in recurrent intraocular pressure elevations, eventually necessitating glaucoma surgery. One eye that had undergone phacoemulsification, penetrating keratoplasty (PK), and vitrectomies showed hypotonia for several weeks after the DMEK (Table 10).

In phakic eyes, mild anterior crystalline lens opacities were sometimes observed after DMEK and usually faded within months. However, in 2 of 33 phakic eyes (6%), the induced lens opacities required phacoemulsification (Table 10).18

Cystoid macular edema developed in 1 patient (0.5% [1 of 200]) after creating a YAG laser iridotomy prior to DMEK (Table 10). One high-myopic eye (0.5% [1 of 200]) presented with a retinal detachment at 2 months after surgery requiring vitrectomy (Table 10). One eye developed a macular hole (0.5% [1 of 200]) and 2 eyes, a macular pucker (1% [2 of 200]) within the first months after surgery (Table 10).

SECONDARY CORNEAL PROCEDURES

A rebubbling procedure was performed in 7 eyes (3.5%), 12 eyes (6%) underwent a second DSEK, and 5 eyes (2.5%) underwent a second DMEK (Figure 6) (Table 10). All of the secondary DSEK and DMEK procedures were successful, and visual outcomes were similar to primary DSEK or DMEK procedures.19

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 6. Diagram displaying the number and sequence of secondary interventions after the 200 Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) surgeries performed in this study. DSEK indicates Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty.

To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study on the efficacy of DMEK, ie, an analysis of its outcomes in a large patient series, unbiased by a learning-curve effect. In past years, the donor preparation protocol was validated,13 and the surgical technique could be standardized as a completely “no-touch” technique.12 Hence, the present data may allow a new baseline for clinical outcome in keratoplasty surgery.

VISUAL OUTCOME AND REHABILITATION RATE

About 80% of cases reached a BCVA of 20/25 or better (≥0.8) at 6 months after DMEK, with about 50% reaching 20/20 or better (≥1.0). These visual outcomes may compare favorably with any earlier keratoplasty technique. Historic studies on PK for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy reported a visual outcome of 20/40 or better (≥0.5) at 1 year in 40% to 50% of patients.20 Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty/DSAEK may surpass PK, with visual acuities up to 20/40 (0.5) in most cases but with only small percentages reaching 20/25 or better (≥0.8).15,21 Clinical observation suggests that (cultured) donor posterior stroma in DSEK/DSAEK grafts degrades the optical quality of a transplanted cornea.2,22,23

Furthermore, the rate of visual rehabilitation may also be faster after DMEK, with most patients reaching their maximal visual potential in 1 to 3 months,7 compared with 6 to 12 months following DSEK/DSAEK and PK.35,20,24,25

REFRACTIVE CHANGE AND STABILITY

After DMEK, both the SE and the cylindrical error were within 1.0 D from the preoperative refractive error. Pachymetry and refractive data suggested that the transplanted cornea stabilizes approximately 3 months after DMEK, so new glasses could commonly be prescribed at this point, until which most patients were able to continue wearing their “own” glasses.

HYPEROPIC SHIFT IN DMEK AND LENS POWER CALCULATION FOR CATARACT SURGERY

Unexpectedly, our study revealed about a +0.4-D hyperopic shift after DMEK. In DSEK/DSAEK, a +1.5-D shift may result from the “negative-lenticle” effect of the stroma carried by the endothelial transplant (being thinner centrally than at its peripheral flange). Since only an isolated donor DM is transplanted in DMEK, the hyperopic shift in DMEK cannot be explained by the same mechanism. The correlation found between the SE and the decrease in central corneal thickness (Figure 3) may indicate that the refractive shift in DMEK results from the preoperative to postoperative difference in recipient corneal hydration and the associated posterior corneal curvature change.8,26 The change in anterior corneal power is only about −0.3 D and falls within the margin of error in intraocular lens power calculation, so established nomograms may be used to calculate the intraocular lens power for cataract surgery at any time prior to DMEK.26

ENDOTHELIAL CELL DENSITY

In the first 6 months after DMEK surgery, the donor ECD decreased about 34% compared with the preoperative counts, similar to the 31% to 34% decrease in ECD after DSEK/DSAEK.2729 Longer-term follow-up may reveal how the decline in ECD after DMEK compares with PK and DSEK/DSAEK. Since DMEK graft diameters (9.0-10.0 mm) exceed those in PK (7.0-8.0 mm) and DSEK/DSAEK (8.0-9.0 mm), more endothelium is transplanted, potentially providing longer graft survival in DMEK.

COMPLICATIONS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

(Partial) graft detachment, the most frequent complication in endothelial keratoplasty,24,11,30 occurred in 18 eyes (9%): 13 in the first 100 cases and 5 in the second 100 cases (Table 10) (Figure 6), despite general precautions, such as a 60-minute air fill of the anterior chamber at the end of the surgery to support the graft and avoiding the use of plastic and/or viscoelastic materials.10 Three additional risk factors were identified: intraoperative vitreous pressure, improper graft positioning, and postoperative ocular hypotonia. Hence, it may be advocated to obtain a soft eye before surgery.12 Inward folds (causing partial detachments by the graft “springing away” from the recipient stroma) may be managed by “bubble bumping,” ie, applying intermittent pressure on the corneal surface to completely unfold the graft.12 Upside-down positioning may be avoided by inserting the Descemet graft as a “double roll” and checking its upward orientation.12 Eyes at risk of developing postoperative hypotonia (eyes with aphakia, sector iridectomy, shallow anterior chamber, glaucoma shunt tube, or preceding posterior segment surgery) may be managed with a modified surgical technique.12,30

Secondary glaucoma due to air bubble misdirection may be avoided by leaving a 20% to 30% (instead of 50%) air bubble in phakic eyes.30 Performing the descemetorhexis “under air” may avoid the risk of remnant recipient DM fragments at the donor-to-host interface, potentially interfering with the optical performance of the transplanted cornea.17 All other complications may have been coincidental.

In conclusion, standardized “no-touch” DMEK may provide complete visual rehabilitation in a far majority of eyes, with a decrease in donor ECD similar to earlier keratoplasty techniques and with 5% to 9% (partial) graft detachment as the most frequent complication.

Correspondence: Gerrit R. J. Melles, MD, PhD, Netherlands Institute for Innovative Ocular Surgery, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (melles@niioc.nl).

Submitted for Publication: February 22, 2011; final revision received April 15, 2011; accepted April 18, 2011.

Published Online: July 11, 2011. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.195

Financial Disclosure: Dr Melles is a consultant for DORC International/Dutch Ophthalmic USA.

Additional Information: A video of the surgical technique is available at www.niios.com.

Melles GRJ. Posterior lamellar keratoplasty: DLEK to DSEK to DMEK.  Cornea. 2006;25(8):879-881
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Ham L, Melles GRJ. Endothelial keratoplasty: DSEK/DSAEK or DMEK—the thinner the better?  Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(4):299-307
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Price MO, Price FW. Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty.  Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007;18(4):290-294
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gorovoy MS. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.  Cornea. 2006;25(8):886-889
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bahar I, Kaiserman I, McAllum P, Slomovic A, Rootman D. Comparison of posterior lamellar keratoplasty techniques to penetrating keratoplasty.  Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1525-1533
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, Dapena I, van Luijk C, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy: review of the first 50 consecutive cases.  Eye (Lond). 2009;23(10):1990-1998
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, Balachandran C, Verschoor CA, van der Wees J, Melles GRJ. Visual rehabilitation rate after isolated Descemet membrane transplantation: descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(3):252-255
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM, Price FW Jr. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival.  Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2361-2368
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Studeny P, Farkas A, Vokrojova M, Liskova P, Jirsova K. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with a stromal rim (DMEK-S).  Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(7):909-914
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Causes of primary donor failure in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(4):639-644
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Ham L, Melles GR. Graft detachment rate.  Ophthalmology. 2010;117(4):847
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Droutsas K, Ham L, van Dijk K, Melles GRJ. Standardized “no-touch” technique for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(1):88-94
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lie JT, Birbal R, Ham L, van der Wees J, Melles GRJ. Donor tissue preparation for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(9):1578-1583
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Melles GRJ, Wijdh RH, Nieuwendaal CP. A technique to excise the Descemet membrane from a recipient cornea (descemetorhexis).  Cornea. 2004;23(3):286-288
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.  J R Stat Soc B. 1995;57(1):289-300
Balachandran C, Ham L, Verschoor CA, Ong TS, van der Wees J, Melles GRJ. Spontaneous corneal clearance despite graft detachment in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(2):227-234, e1
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Ham L, Moutsouris K, Melles GRJ. Incidence of recipient Descemet membrane remnants at the donor-to-stromal interface after descemetorhexis in endothelial keratoplasty.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(12):1689-1690
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Ham L, Tabak S, Balachandran C, Melles G. Phacoemulsification after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(7):1314-1315
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Ham L, van Luijk C, van der Wees J, Melles GRJ. Back-up procedure for graft failure in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).  Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(2):241-244
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Williams KA, Muehlberg SM, Lewis RF, Coster DJ. How successful is corneal transplantation? a report from the Australian Corneal Graft Register.  Eye (Lond). 1995;9(pt 2):219-227
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chen ES, Terry MA, Shamie N, Hoar KL, Friend DJ. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: six-month results in a prospective study of 100 eyes.  Cornea. 2008;27(5):514-520
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moutsouris K, Ham L, Dapena I, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Radial graft contraction may relate to subnormal visual acuity in Descemet stripping (automated) endothelial keratoplasty.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(7):951-953
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, Dapena I, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Secondary DMEK for poor visual outcome after DSEK: donor posterior stroma may limit visual acuity in endothelial keratoplasty.  Cornea. 2010;29(11):1278-1283
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Koenig SB, Covert DJ, Dupps WJ Jr, Meisler DM. Visual acuity, refractive error, and endothelial cell density six months after Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK).  Cornea. 2007;26(6):670-674
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mearza AA, Qureshi MA, Rostron CK. Experience and 12-month results of Descemet-stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) with a small-incision technique.  Cornea. 2007;26(3):279-283
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, Dapena I, Moutsouris K,  et al.  Refractive change and stability after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).  J Cataract Refract SurgIn press
Parker J, Dirisamer M, Naveiras M, Ham L, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Endothelial cell density after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 4-year follow-up.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(6):1107-1107, e2
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES, Phillips PM, Hoar KL, Friend DJ. Precut tissue for Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: vision, astigmatism, and endothelial survival.  Ophthalmology. 2009;116(2):248-256
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Price MO, Price FW Jr. Endothelial cell loss after Descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty influencing factors and 2-year trend.  Ophthalmology. 2008;115(5):857-865
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Suh LH, Yoo SH, Deobhakta A,  et al.  Complications of Descemet's stripping with automated endothelial keratoplasty: survey of 118 eyes at one institute.  Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1517-1524
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 1. Graph displaying the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) before (Preop) and at 1, 3, and 6 months after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) surgery.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 2. Topographic corneal power maps of the anterior corneal curvature (A-C), posterior corneal curvature (D-F), and central corneal thickness (G-I) before Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (Preop) (A, D, and G) and 6 months after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (Postop) (B, E, and H) and the corresponding difference maps (C, F, and I). The anterior corneal curvature is stable, but the posterior curvature does show a change of approximately 1.0 diopter. Compare with Table 7.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 3. Scatterplot displaying the difference in preoperative to 6 months' postoperative central corneal thickness and spherical equivalent, which revealed a significant correlation. D indicates diopters.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 5. Slitlamp photographs of an eye 1 month after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Note the recipient Descemet membrane remnant (arrows) in the paracentral cornea (A), potentially interfering with the visual acuity (B).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 4. Slitlamp and Scheimpflug images of an eye 1 month after successful Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) surgery (A and B), and another eye 1 and 6 months after DMEK surgery complicated by graft detachment (C-F). Note the near normal corneal anatomy after successful DMEK surgery, while the other eye initially showed corneal decompensation (C and D) (arrows) followed by “spontaneous clearance” of the transplanted cornea despite persistent graft detachment (E and F) (arrows).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure 6. Diagram displaying the number and sequence of secondary interventions after the 200 Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) surgeries performed in this study. DSEK indicates Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Demographics for Patients Who Underwent DMEK
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Subjective Refractive Outcome of DMEK in 143 Eyes With a Preoperative BCVA of at Least CF (≥1/60)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 8. Central Corneal Thickness (Pentacama Measurements) After DMEK in 150 Eyes
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 9. Donor Endothelial Cell Density Before and After DMEK in 173 Eyes
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 7. Objective Refractive Outcome (Pentacama Measurements) After DMEK in 150 Eyes
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 6. Stability of Refraction After DMEK in 143 Eyes
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Subjective Refractive Outcome of DMEK in 115 Eyes With a Preoperative BCVA of 20/60 or Better (≥0.3)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Analysis of Clinical Outcome of DMEK in 200 Eyes

References

Melles GRJ. Posterior lamellar keratoplasty: DLEK to DSEK to DMEK.  Cornea. 2006;25(8):879-881
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Ham L, Melles GRJ. Endothelial keratoplasty: DSEK/DSAEK or DMEK—the thinner the better?  Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(4):299-307
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Price MO, Price FW. Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty.  Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007;18(4):290-294
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gorovoy MS. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.  Cornea. 2006;25(8):886-889
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bahar I, Kaiserman I, McAllum P, Slomovic A, Rootman D. Comparison of posterior lamellar keratoplasty techniques to penetrating keratoplasty.  Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1525-1533
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, Dapena I, van Luijk C, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy: review of the first 50 consecutive cases.  Eye (Lond). 2009;23(10):1990-1998
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, Balachandran C, Verschoor CA, van der Wees J, Melles GRJ. Visual rehabilitation rate after isolated Descemet membrane transplantation: descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(3):252-255
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM, Price FW Jr. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival.  Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2361-2368
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Studeny P, Farkas A, Vokrojova M, Liskova P, Jirsova K. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with a stromal rim (DMEK-S).  Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(7):909-914
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Causes of primary donor failure in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(4):639-644
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Ham L, Melles GR. Graft detachment rate.  Ophthalmology. 2010;117(4):847
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Droutsas K, Ham L, van Dijk K, Melles GRJ. Standardized “no-touch” technique for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(1):88-94
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lie JT, Birbal R, Ham L, van der Wees J, Melles GRJ. Donor tissue preparation for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(9):1578-1583
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Melles GRJ, Wijdh RH, Nieuwendaal CP. A technique to excise the Descemet membrane from a recipient cornea (descemetorhexis).  Cornea. 2004;23(3):286-288
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.  J R Stat Soc B. 1995;57(1):289-300
Balachandran C, Ham L, Verschoor CA, Ong TS, van der Wees J, Melles GRJ. Spontaneous corneal clearance despite graft detachment in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(2):227-234, e1
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Ham L, Moutsouris K, Melles GRJ. Incidence of recipient Descemet membrane remnants at the donor-to-stromal interface after descemetorhexis in endothelial keratoplasty.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(12):1689-1690
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Ham L, Tabak S, Balachandran C, Melles G. Phacoemulsification after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(7):1314-1315
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dapena I, Ham L, van Luijk C, van der Wees J, Melles GRJ. Back-up procedure for graft failure in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).  Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(2):241-244
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Williams KA, Muehlberg SM, Lewis RF, Coster DJ. How successful is corneal transplantation? a report from the Australian Corneal Graft Register.  Eye (Lond). 1995;9(pt 2):219-227
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chen ES, Terry MA, Shamie N, Hoar KL, Friend DJ. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: six-month results in a prospective study of 100 eyes.  Cornea. 2008;27(5):514-520
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moutsouris K, Ham L, Dapena I, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Radial graft contraction may relate to subnormal visual acuity in Descemet stripping (automated) endothelial keratoplasty.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(7):951-953
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, Dapena I, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Secondary DMEK for poor visual outcome after DSEK: donor posterior stroma may limit visual acuity in endothelial keratoplasty.  Cornea. 2010;29(11):1278-1283
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Koenig SB, Covert DJ, Dupps WJ Jr, Meisler DM. Visual acuity, refractive error, and endothelial cell density six months after Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK).  Cornea. 2007;26(6):670-674
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mearza AA, Qureshi MA, Rostron CK. Experience and 12-month results of Descemet-stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) with a small-incision technique.  Cornea. 2007;26(3):279-283
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ham L, Dapena I, Moutsouris K,  et al.  Refractive change and stability after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).  J Cataract Refract SurgIn press
Parker J, Dirisamer M, Naveiras M, Ham L, van der Wees J, Melles GR. Endothelial cell density after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 4-year follow-up.  Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(6):1107-1107, e2
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES, Phillips PM, Hoar KL, Friend DJ. Precut tissue for Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: vision, astigmatism, and endothelial survival.  Ophthalmology. 2009;116(2):248-256
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Price MO, Price FW Jr. Endothelial cell loss after Descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty influencing factors and 2-year trend.  Ophthalmology. 2008;115(5):857-865
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Suh LH, Yoo SH, Deobhakta A,  et al.  Complications of Descemet's stripping with automated endothelial keratoplasty: survey of 118 eyes at one institute.  Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1517-1524
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1,644 Views
51 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Jobs