Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of the difficulty of graft unfolding and attachment on the outcome in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty

  • Cornea
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is a standard procedure in patients with endothelial corneal disorders. We investigated the difficulty of unfolding and attaching the graft lamella and its correlation to characteristics of the graft lamella donor, preoperative patient characteristics, and the postoperative outcome.

Methods

After preparation of the graft lamella, we prospectively graded the unfolding of the graft lamella in 169 consecutive DMEK procedures between September 2012 and August 2013 at the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin with four different grades. Various donor characteristics and preoperative patient characteristics were analyzed and correlated to the grading. Additionally, visual acuity, corneal thickness and endothelial cell density were measured and correlated.

Results

Donor characteristics (age [range, 49 – 79 years], gender, endothelial cell density, total storage time, storage de-swelling time, postmortem time) did not correlate to the grading. Preoperative visual acuity significantly influenced the grade of unfolding and attaching of the graft lamella (p = 0.023), while all other preoperative parameters (age, gender, indication for DMEK, preoperative endothelial cell density and preoperative central corneal thickness) showed no correlation. Visual acuity improved significantly after surgery (p < 0.001, preoperative 0.73 ±0.43 LogMAR versus 0.31 ±0.28 LogMAR after one month, 0.25 ±0.29 LogMAR after three months, and 0.21 ±0.25 LogMAR after six months). Visual acuity did not differ significantly between the grading groups at any time point postoperatively. After 6 months, the mean loss rate of endothelial cell density was 24.7 %. Grading group IV developed significantly higher endothelial loss after one month, after three months and after six months compared to the other groups (p = 0.039, p = 0.008, p = 0.048). Graft detachment requiring an additional intracameral air injection to fix the graft detachment (re-bubbling) occurred in 61 eyes (38.1 %). In eyes graded IV, more re-bubblings were necessary than in all other groups (grade I: 37.0 %; grade II: 44.7 %; grade III: 43.8 %; grade IV: 50.0 %; p = 0.128; df = 3; χ 2 = 5.676).

Conclusion

There is no correlation between corneal donor tissue characteristics and the degree of difficulty of unfolding using graft lamella older than 49 years. Therefore, it is not possible to select grafts best suited for DMEK surgery on the basis of donor characteristics when the donor age is above 50 years. Preoperative visual acuity influences the grade of difficulty. The rate of graft detachments and endothelial cell loss increases significantly with a more difficult graft unfolding. The proposed grading system may therefore be relevant for postoperative management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Melles GR, Wijdh RH, Nieuwendaal CP (2004) A technique to excise the descemet membrane from a recipient cornea (descemetorhexis). Cornea 23(3):286–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Price FW Jr, Price MO (2005) Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 50 eyes: a refractive neutral corneal transplant. J Refract Surg 21:339–345

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Price FW Jr, Price MO (2006) Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 200 eyes: Early challenges and techniques to enhance donor adherence. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:411–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Melles GR, Ong TS, Ververs B, van der Wees J (2006) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea 25:987–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Melles GR, Ong TS, Ververs B, van der Wees J (2008) Preliminary clinical results of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 145(2):222–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Heinzelmann S, Hüther S, Böhringer D, Eberwein P, Reinhard T, Maier P (2014) Influence of donor characteristics on descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 33(6):644–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dapena I, Ham L, Droutsas K, van Dijk K, Moutsouris K, Melles GR (2011) Learning curve in Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: first series of 135 consecutive cases. Ophthalmology 118(11):2147–2154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Droutsas K, Giallouros E, Melles GR, Chatzistefanou K, Sekundo W (2013) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: learning curve of a single surgeon. Cornea 32(8):1075–1079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Monnereau C, Quilendrino R, Dapena I, Liarakos VS, Alfonso JF, Arnalich-Montiel F, Böhnke M, Pereira NC, Dirisamer M, Parker J, Droutsas K, Geerling G, Gerten G, Hashemi H, Kobayashi A, Naveiras M, Oganesyan O, Orduña Domingo E, Priglinger S, Stodulka P, Torrano Silva J Jr, Venzano D, Vetter JM, Yiu E, Melles GR (2014) Multicenter study of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: first case series of 18 surgeons. JAMA Ophthalmol 132(10):1192–1198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Droutsas K, Ham L, van Dijk K, Melles GR (2011) Standardized “no-touch” technique for descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 129(1):88–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Joussen AM, Heussen FM, Joeres S, Llacer H, Prinz B, Rohrschneider K, Maaijwee KJ, van Meurs J, Kirchhof B (2006) Autologous translocation of the choroid and retinal pigment epithelium in age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol 142(1):17–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heindl LM, Bucher F, Caramoy A, Hos D, Matthaei M, Cursiefen C (2014) Safety of donor tissue preparation and use of descemetoschisis and torn tissue in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 33(10):e7–e9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Horn FK, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE (2011) Donor tissue culture conditions and outcome after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 151(6):1007–1018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang J, Patel DV (2015) The pathophysiology of Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy - A review of molecular and cellular insights. Exp Eye Res 130C:97–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dirisamer M, van Dijk K, Dapena I, Ham L, Oganes O, Frank LE, Melles GR (2012) Prevention and management of graft detachment in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 130(3):280–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Simone Baar and Dirk Scharf for technical support.

Anna-Karina B. Maier financial support provided by the “Friedrich C. Luft” Clinical Scientist Pilot Program funded by the Volkswagen Foundation and the Charité Foundation

Enken Gundlach financial support provided by the “Ernst und Bertha Grimmke Stiftung.”

Competing interest

None declared for all authors.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Ophthalmology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Virchow Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

      Anna-Karina B. Maier, Enken Gundlach, Jan Schroeter, Matthias K. J. Klamann, Johannes Gonnermann, Aline I. Riechardt, Eckart Bertelmann, Antonia M. Joussen & Necip Torun

    Authors
    1. Anna-Karina B. Maier
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Enken Gundlach
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Jan Schroeter
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Matthias K. J. Klamann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Johannes Gonnermann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Aline I. Riechardt
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Eckart Bertelmann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    8. Antonia M. Joussen
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    9. Necip Torun
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Anna-Karina B. Maier.

    Additional information

    Anna-Karina B. Maier and Enken Gundlach contributed equally to this work.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Maier, AK.B., Gundlach, E., Schroeter, J. et al. Influence of the difficulty of graft unfolding and attachment on the outcome in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253, 895–900 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-2939-9

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Revised:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-2939-9

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation