Cell and Tissue Banking

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 573–578 | Cite as

Comparison of organ cultured precut corneas versus surgeon-cut corneas for Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty

  • Suganiah Ragunathan
  • Anders Ivarsen
  • Kim Nielsen
  • Jesper Hjortdal
Original Paper

Abstract

To compare precut and surgeon-cut organ cultured donor corneas for DSAEK. A total of 119 consecutive eyes treated with DSAEK were retrospectically identified. 65 grafts were cut by the surgeon (Moria, ALTK System) prior to DSAEK and 54 grafts were precut by laboratory technicians from the Danish Eye Bank (Horizon single-use system). 1 year after surgery, tomographic images were obtained with the Pentacam HR. Endothelial cell density (ECD) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was determined. Graft thickness and graft asymmetry was evaluated in the centre and 1 mm from the edge of the graft in 6 semi-meridians. 1 year after surgery, the ECD loss was similar in the two groups, averaging 25.9 ± 14 % in surgeon-cut, and 22.9 ± 17 % in precut group (p = 0.33). Mean central graft thickness was 172 ± 6 μm in surgeon-cut grafts and 182 ± 6 μm in precut grafts (p = 0.30). BCVA was similar in surgeon-cut and precut corneas; being 0.25 ± 0.02 logMAR and 0.24 ± 0.02 logMAR, respectively (p = 0.59). The graft asymmetry index was 1.48 ± 0.02 for surgeon-cut and 1.44 ± 0.02 for precut grafts. There were no significant differences in complications rate in both groups. No correlations between BCVA and central graft thickness or graft asymmetry index in both groups were observed. Organ cultured precut donor corneas are comparable with surgeon-cut grafts with respect to ECD, graft thickness and asymmetry, and postoperative complication rate.

Keywords

Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty Corneal transplantation Eye banks Tissue donors Organ culture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Danish Association for Prevention of Blindness and Bagenkop Nielsens Foundation.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial disclosures.

References

  1. De Sanctis U, Angeloni M, Zilio C et al (2011) Corneal power after DSAEK using microkeratome-prepared tissues. Optom Vis Sci 88:697–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dickman MM, Cheng YY, Berendschot TT et al (2013) Effects of graft thickness and asymmetry on visual gain and aberrations after descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. JAMA Ophthalmol 11:1–8Google Scholar
  3. Ehlers H, Ehlers N, Hjortdal JO et al (1999) Corneal transplantation with donor tissue kept in organ culture for 7 weeks. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 77:277–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. European Eye Bank Association, Directory, twenty-first edition, January 2013Google Scholar
  5. Higashiura R, Maeda N et al (2012) Corneal topographic analysis by 3-dimensional anterior segment optical coherence tomography after endothelial keratoplasty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:3286–3295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hjortdal J, Nielsen E, Vestergaard A et al (2012) Inverse cutting of posterior lamellar corneal grafts by a femtosecond laser. Open Ophthalmol J 6:19–22PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jhanji V, Pollock GA, Mackey AL et al (2012) Histopathological evaluation of anterior lamellar corneal tissue-on/-off storage conditions on DSAEK donor tissue after storage in organ culture. Curr Eye Res 37:155–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kitzmann AS, Goins KM, Reed C et al (2008) Eye bank survey of surgeons using precut donor tissue for descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 27:634–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Neff K, Biber J, Holland E et al (2011) Comparison of central corneal graft thickness to visual acuity outcomes in endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 30:388–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Oster S, Ebrahimi K et al (2009) A clinicopathologic series of primary graft failure after Descemet’s stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 116:609–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pels E, Beele H, Claerhout I et al (2008) Eye bank issues: II. Preservation techniques: warm versus cold storage. Int Ophthalmol 28:155–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pogorelov P, Cursiefen C, Bachmann BO et al (2009) Changes in donor corneal lenticule thickness after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) with organ-cultured corneas. Br J Ophthalmol 93:825–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Price MO, Baig KM, Brubaker JW et al (2008) Randomized, prospective comparison of precut vs surgeon-dissected grafts for descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 146:36–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rose L, Briceño CA, Stark WJ et al (2008) Assessment of eye bank-prepared posterior lamellar corneal tissue for endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 115:279–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruzza A, Salvalaio G, Bruni A et al (2013) Banking of donor tissues for descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 32:70–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scorcia V, Matteoni S, Scorcia GB et al (2009) Pentacam assessment of posterior lamellar grafts to explain hyperopization after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 116:1651–1655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shinton A, Tsatsos M, Konstantopoulos A et al (2012) Impact of graft thickness on visual acuity after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty. British J Ophthalmol 96:246–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Silvera DA, Goins KM, Sutphin JE et al (2006) Comparison of visual outcomes, operating room efficiently and complications rates of eye bank pre-cut donor tissue versus intraoperatively cut tissue for DSEK. Paper presented at Federated Societies Scientific Session, November 11, Las Vegas, NVGoogle Scholar
  19. Sperling S (1979) Human corneal endothelium in organ culture; the influence of temperature and medium of incubation. Acta Ophthalmol 57:269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sperling S, Olsen T, Ehlers N et al (1981) Fresh and cultured corneal grafts compared by post-operative thickness end endothelial cell density. Acta Ophthalmol 59:566–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Terry MA (2009) Endothelial keratoplasty: a comparison of complication rates and endothelial survival between precut tissue and surgeon-cut tissue by a single DSAEK surgeon. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 107:184–191PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES et al (2009a) Precut tissue for Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: vision, astigmatism, and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology 116:248–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES et al (2009b) Endothelial keratoplasty for fuchs’ dystrophy with cataract: complications and clinical results with the new triple procedure. Ophthalmology 116:631–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suganiah Ragunathan
    • 1
  • Anders Ivarsen
    • 1
  • Kim Nielsen
    • 1
  • Jesper Hjortdal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyAarhus University HospitalÅrhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations