Advertisement

Der Ophthalmologe

, Volume 115, Issue 9, pp 778–784 | Cite as

Technik der „Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty“ (DMEK)

Videobeitrag
  • M. MatthaeiEmail author
  • B. Bachmann
  • S. Siebelmann
  • C. Cursiefen
Video plus

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Bei der „Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty“ (DMEK) werden selektiv erkranktes Hornhautendothel und Descemet-Membran entfernt und durch gesundes Spendergewebe ersetzt. Die DMEK stellt heute den Goldstandard zur Therapie der kornealen endothelialen Dysfunktion dar.

Methoden

Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird die Operationstechnik der DMEK anhand eines Videos dargestellt, und darüber hinaus werden Operationsindikationen, Patientenaufklärung, Anästhesie und Lagerung, postoperative Behandlung sowie mögliche Komplikationen und deren Management erläutert.

Ergebnis

Die DMEK kann im breiten Spektrum zur Therapie der kornealen endothelialen Dysfunktion angewendet werden. Die Grundlage für die hervorragenden Ergebnisse des Operationsverfahrens sind neben der operativen Umsetzung auch sorgfältige Spender-Patienten-Allokation, gründliche Voruntersuchung und Nachsorge der Patienten und Erfahrung des Operateurs.

Schlussfolgerung

Die DMEK ist ein sicheres und effektives Verfahren zur Therapie der kornealen endothelialen Dysfunktion. Ein standardisiertes und individualisiertes Vorgehen ermöglicht im Vergleich mit allen bisherigen Transplantationsverfahren optimalste Ergebnisse.

Schlüsselwörter

Lamelläre Keratoplastik Video Korneale endotheliale Dysfunktion Hornhautendothel Descemet-Membran  

Technique of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK)

Video article

Abstract

Background

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) selectively removes diseased corneal endothelium and Descemet membrane and replaces them with healthy donor tissue. The DMEK technique represents the current gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunction.

Methods

In this article the surgical technique for DMEK is presented by means of a video. The indications for surgery, patient education, anesthesia and patient positioning, postoperative treatment as well as possible complications and their management are described.

Results

The DMEK can be applied for the treatment of a wide range of corneal endothelial disorders. In addition to the operative implementation, the basis for the outstanding results of the surgical procedure are careful donor-patient allocation, thorough examination and follow-up of all patients and experience of the surgeon.

Conclusion

The use of DMEK is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunction. A standardized and individualized procedure provides the basis for optimal results compared to all previous transplantation procedures.

Keywords

Lamellar keratoplasty Video Corneal endothelial dysfunction Corneal endothelium Descemet membrane 

Notes

Förderung

German Research Foundation (FOR2240 to CC; MA 5110/5-1 to MM; CU 47/6-1, CU 47/9-1, CU 47/12-1 to CC), FORTUNE Program University of Cologne (to MM); GEROK Program University of Cologne (to MM); Zentrum für Molekulare Medizin Köln (ZMMK; to CC, MM); EU COST BM1302 „Joining Forces in Corneal Regeneration“ (to CC, SS), EU Arrest Blindness (to CC), EU EFRE NRW (to SS).

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

M. Matthaei, B. Bachmann, S. Siebelmann und C. Cursiefen geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Alle beschriebenen Untersuchungen am Menschen wurden mit Zustimmung der zuständigen Ethik-Kommission, im Einklang mit nationalem Recht sowie gemäß der Deklaration von Helsinki von 1975 (in der aktuellen, überarbeiteten Fassung) durchgeführt. Es handelt sich um eine Übersichtsarbeit, die auf eigenen Erfahrungen basiert sowie eine Literaturübersicht aus PubMed umfasst.

Supplementary material

Video: „Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty“ (DMEK); Copyright: PD Dr. Mario Matthaei, Köln

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Bachmann B, Cursiefen C (2017) Intra- and postoperative complications and their management in DMEK (including Re-DMEK). In: Cursiefen C, Jun AS (Hrsg) Current treatment options for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Springer International Publishing, Cham, S 153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachmann B, Schaub F, Cursiefen C (2016) Treatment of corneal endothelial disorders by DMEK and UT-DSAEK: Indications, complications, results and follow-up. Ophthalmologe 113:196–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bachmann BO, Laaser K, Cursiefen C et al (2010) A method to confirm correct orientation of Descemet membrane during descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 149:922–925.e2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bachmann BO, Pogorelov P, Kruse FE et al (2008) Patient satisfaction after posterior lamellar keratoplasty (DSAEK). Patientenzufriedenheit nach posteriorer lamellarer Keratoplastik (DSAEK). Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 225:577–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bachmann BO, Schrittenlocher SA, Schaub F et al (2017) Complications of DMEKeratoplasty: avoid, recognize and treat. DMEK: Probleme vermeiden, erkennen, lösen. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 234(11):1354–1361.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-105269 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baydoun L, Dapena I, Melles G (2016) Evolution of posterior lamellar keratoplasty: PK – DLEK – DSEK/DSAEK – DMEK – DMET. In: Cursiefen C, Jun AS (Hrsg) Current treatment options for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, S 73–85Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bucher F, Hos D, Matthaei M et al (2014) Corneal nerve alterations after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: an in vivo confocal microscopy study. Cornea 33:1134–1139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bucher F, Hos D, Müller-Schwefe S et al (2015) Spontaneous long-term course of persistent peripheral graft detachments after Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol 99:768–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cursiefen C, Kruse FE (2010) DMEK: Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmologe 107:370–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cursiefen C, Kruse FE, Erlanger DG (2009) Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Ophthalmologe 106:939–952 (quiz 953)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cursiefen C, Schaub F, Bachmann BO (2016) Update minimally invasive lamellar keratoplasty: DMEK, DSAEK and DALK. Update minimalinvasive lamellare Keratoplastik: DMEK, DSAEK und DALK. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 233:1033–1042CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Droutsas K et al (2011) Standardized “no-touch” technique for descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 129:88–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deng SX, Lee WB, Hammersmith KM et al (2017) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 125(2):295–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flockerzi E, Maier P, Böhringer D et al (2018) Trends in corneal transplantation from 2001 to 2016 in Germany: a report of the DOG-section cornea and its keratoplasty registry. Am J Ophthalmol 188:91–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.01.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gorovoy MS (2014) DMEK complications. Cornea 33:101–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greiner MA, Rixen JJ, Wagoner MD et al (2014) Diabetes mellitus increases risk of unsuccessful graft preparation in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a multicenter study. Cornea 33:1129–1133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heindl LM, Riss S, Laaser K et al (2011) Split cornea transplantation for 2 recipients—review of the first 100 consecutive patients. Am J Ophthalmol 152:523–532.e2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoerster R, Stanzel TP, Bachmann BO et al (2016) Intensified topical steroids as prophylaxis for macular edema after posterior lamellar keratoplasty combined with cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 163:174–179.e2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hos D, Heindl LM, Bucher F et al (2014) Evidence of donor corneal endothelial cell migration from immune reactions occurring after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 33:331–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hos D, Tuac O, Schaub F et al (2017) Incidence and clinical course of immune reactions after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: retrospective analysis of 1000 consecutive eyes. Ophthalmology 124:512–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kruse FE, Laaser K, Cursiefen C et al (2011) A stepwise approach to donor preparation and insertion increases safety and outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 30:580–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Melles GRJ, Lander F, Rietveld FJR (2002) Transplantation of Descemet’s membrane carrying viable endothelium through a small scleral incision. Cornea 21:415–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Melles GRJ, Ong TS, Ververs B et al (2006) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea 25:987–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Price MO, Feng MT, Scanameo A et al (2015) Loteprednol etabonate 0.5 % gel vs. prednisolone acetate 1 % solution after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective randomized trial. Cornea 34:853–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Price MO, Price FW Jr., Kruse FE et al (2014) Randomized comparison of topical prednisolone acetate 1 % versus fluorometholone 0.1 % in the first year after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 33:880–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Price MO, Scanameo A, Feng MT et al (2016) Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: risk of immunologic rejection episodes after discontinuing topical corticosteroids. Ophthalmology 123:1232–1236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rudolph M, Laaser K, Bachmann BO et al (2012) Corneal higher-order aberrations after Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 119:528–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schaub F, Enders P, Snijders K et al (2017) One-year outcome after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) comparing sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 20 % versus 100 % air for anterior chamber tamponade. Br J Ophthalmol 101:902–908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schaub F, Enders P, Zachewicz J et al (2016) Impact of donor age on Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty outcome: evaluation of donors aged 17–55 years. Am J Ophthalmol 170:119–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schaub F, Simons HG, Roters S et al (2016) Influence of 20 % sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) on human corneal endothelial cells : an in vitro study. Einfluss von 20 % Schwefelhexafluorid (SF6) auf humane korneale Endothelzellen : Eine In-vitro-Studie. Ophthalmologe 113:52–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schrittenlocher S, Penier M, Schaub F et al (2017) Intraocular lens calcifications after (triple‑) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 179:129–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Siebelmann S, Bachmann B, Lappas A et al (2016) Intraoperative optical coherence tomography in corneal and glaucoma surgical procedures. Intraoperative optische Kohärenztomographie bei hornhaut- und glaukomchirurgischen Eingriffen. Ophthalmologe 113:646–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Siebelmann S, Gehlsen U, Le Blanc C et al (2016) Detection of graft detachments immediately following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) comparing time domain and spectral domain OCT. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 254:2431–2437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stanzel TP, Ersoy L, Sansanayudh W et al (2016) Immediate postoperative intraocular pressure changes after anterior chamber air fill in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 35:14–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Steven P, Le Blanc C, Velten K et al (2013) Optimizing descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty using intraoperative optical coherence tomography. JAMA Ophthalmol 131:1135–1142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tourtas T, Heindl LM, Kopsachilis N et al (2013) Use of accidentally torn descemet membrane to successfully complete descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 32:1418–1422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann BO et al (2012) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 153:1082–1090e2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zirm E (1906) Eine erfolgreiche totale Keratoplastik. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Ophthalmol 54:580–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Matthaei
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. Bachmann
    • 1
  • S. Siebelmann
    • 1
  • C. Cursiefen
    • 1
  1. 1.Zentrum für AugenheilkundeUniversitätsklinik KölnKölnDeutschland

Personalised recommendations