Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“OSMO-UT-DSAEK” using THIN-C medium

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

Abstract

Background

When performing ultra-thin Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK), the quality of the stromal interface and stromal thickness seem to be critical for visual outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate whether additional osmotic deswelling prior to UT-DSAEK improves the quality of the cut surface and leads to a more reliable and deeper cut in UT-DSAEK (“OSMO-UT-DSAEK”).

Methods

Seventeen human donor corneas not usable for transplantation were used in this experiment. After standard deswelling with culture Medium II, ten corneas were randomly assigned to be additionally deswollen within THIN-C medium. The other remaining seven corneas were put back into culture Medium II. All corneas were placed in an artificial anterior chamber system (Moria); a double path cutting procedure using a microkeratome (Moria) was then performed. Corneal thickness was measured by ultrasound biomicroscopy and in paraffin-embedded slides, followed by histological grading of the cut surface.

Results

Stromal interface smoothness significantly improved after preconditioning in THIN-C medium (Pearson P = 0.019). The correlation of the corneal thickness obtained by UBM (mean 706 ± SD 208 μm) and histology (mean 530 ± SD 159 μm) was not significant (Pearson r = 0.11, P > 0.05, mean difference 247, 95 % CI [+50;+304]). We found no significant correlation between the microkeratome setting and the actual thickness of the lenticule measured in histological analysis in both media as well as for the first and second cut (first cut: Pearson r = 0.9, P = 0.1, 95 % CI [−10;+96], second cut: Pearson r = 0.9, P = 0.4, 95 % CI [−10;+22]).

Conclusion

Preconditioning of corneas with THIN-C medium significantly improved the quality of the graft interface in UT-DSAEK, but did not significantly improve the cut precision of the microkeratome.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bahar I, Kaiserman I, McAllum P, Slomovic A, Rootman D (2008) Comparison of posterior lamellar keratoplasty techniques to penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 115:1525–1533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dapena I, Ham L, Melles GR (2009) Endothelial keratoplasty: DSEK/DSAEK or DMEK—the thinner the better? Curr Opin Ophthalmol 20:299–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Terry MA, Straiko MD, Goshe JM, Li JY, Davis-Boozer D (2012) Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: the tenuous relationship between donor thickness and postoperative vision. Ophthalmology 119:1988–1996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Heindl LM, Riss S, Adler W, Bucher F, Hos D, Cursiefen C (2013) Split cornea transplantation: Relationship between storage time of split donor tissue and outcome. Ophthalmology 120(5):899–907. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE (2012) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 153(1082–1090):e1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hjortdal J, Ehlers N (2009) Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy. Acta Ophthalmol 87:310–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Happ DM, Lewis DA, Eng KH, Potter HA, Neekhra A, Croasdale CR, Hardten DR, Nehls S, Eide M, Rowe J, Khedr S, Albert DM (2012) Postoperative visual acuity in patients with Fuchs dystrophy undergoing Descemet membrane-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: correlation with the severity of histologic changes. Arch Ophthalmol 130:33–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cursiefen C, Kruse FE (2009) Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Ophthalmologe 106:939–952, quiz 953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cursiefen C (2013) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: the taming of the shrew. JAMA Ophthalmol 131:88–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heindl LM, Hofmann-Rummelt C, Schlotzer-Schrehardt U, Kruse FE, Cursiefen C (2008) Histologic analysis of Descemet stripping in posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 126:461–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW (2011) Endothelial keratoplasty: fellow eyes comparison of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 30:1382–1386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Cleynenbreugel H, Remeijer L, Hillenaar T (2011) Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: effect of intraoperative lenticule thickness on visual outcome and endothelial cell density. Cornea 30:1195–1200

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Uchino Y, Shimmura S, Yamaguchi T, Kawakita T, Matsumoto Y, Negishi K, Tsubota K (2011) Comparison of corneal thickness and haze in DSAEK and penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea 30:287–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jun B, Kuo AN, Afshari NA, Carlson AN, Kim T (2009) Refractive change after descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty surgery and its correlation with graft thickness and diameter. Cornea 28:19–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pocobelli R, Amici C, D’Amato Tothova J, Macaluso C (2012) Monitoring of endothelial cell density during simulation of DSAEK Phases in vitro using THIN-C deswelling medium and two different glides for endothelium insertion. EEBA, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tehrani M, Schafer S, Dick HB (2004) Evaluation of cut quality using the Amadeus microkeratome with different settings. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:2415–2419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vinciguerra P, Azzolini M, Radice P, Sborgia M, De Molfetta V (1998) A method for examining surface and interface irregularities after photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis: predictor of optical and functional outcomes. J Refract Surg 14:S204–206

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wirbelauer C, Winkler J, Bastian GO, Haberle H, Pham DT (2002) Histopathological correlation of corneal diseases with optical coherence tomography. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240:727–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ehlers JP, McNutt SA, Kaiser PK, Srivastava SK (2013) Contrast-enhanced intraoperative optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-303048

    Google Scholar 

  20. Steven C, Velten K, Lankenau E, Krug M, Oelckers S, Heindl L, Gehlsen U, Huettmann G, Cursiefen C (2013) Optimizing Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty using intraoperative optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol [in press]

  21. Amato D, Lombardo M, Oddone F, Nubile M, Colabelli Gisoldi RA, Villani CM, Yoo S, Parel JM, Pocobelli A (2011) Evaluation of a new method for the measurement of corneal thickness in eye bank posterior corneal lenticules using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 95:580–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wolf A, von Jagow B, Kook D, Messmer EM, Lackerbauer CA, Kampik A, Kohnen T, Grueterich M (2012) Evaluation of interface quality in organ-cultured lamellar corneal transplants. Clin Ophthalmol 6:967–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wolf AH, Welge-Lussen UC, Priglinger S, Kook D, Grueterich M, Hartmann K, Kampik A, Neubauer AS (2009) Optimizing the deswelling process of organ-cultured corneas. Cornea 28:524–529

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Martina Becker, MTA, and H. Simons, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, provided excellent technical support.

Financial support

DFG (Cu 47/-1), DFG (Cu 47/6-1), DFG (HE 6743/2-1), GEROK Programm Universität Köln, Köln Fortune, Ruth und Helmut Lingen Stiftung Köln

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned in the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Kerpenerstraße 62, 50924, Cologne, Germany

    F. Bucher, S. Roters, A. Mellein, D. Hos, L. M. Heindl, C. Cursiefen & M. Hermann

Authors
  1. F. Bucher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Roters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Mellein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Hos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. M. Heindl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Cursiefen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Hermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Bucher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bucher, F., Roters, S., Mellein, A. et al. “OSMO-UT-DSAEK” using THIN-C medium. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251, 2181–2185 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-013-2434-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-013-2434-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation