Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Ziel dieser Studie war es, unsere ersten 120 konsekutiven Descemet-Membran-Endothelkeratoplastik (DMEK) Fälle bezüglich klinischer Ergebnisse, Komplikationen und der Durchführbarkeit dieser neuen Operationsmethode zu evaluieren. Zudem sollte untersucht werden, ob DMEK auch für ein breiteres Indikationsspektrum, beispielsweise als Sekundärtransplantation nach primärer lamellierender Keratoplastik, geeignet ist.
Material und Methode
Alle DMEK Operationen wurden gemäß einer standardisierten, berührungsfreien Technik von 2 Operateuren durchgeführt. Bei allen Augen wurde präoperativ und 3, 6 und 12 Monate postoperativ eine Spaltlampenuntersuchung durchgeführt sowie die bestkorrigierte Sehstärke bestimmt. Weiters wurden Scheimpflug-Tomographie und Spektral-Domain Optische Kohärenz Tomographie Aufnahmen angefertigt sowie alle aufgetretenen Komplikationen aufgezeichnet.
Resultate
Drei Monate postoperativ erreichten Augen mit einem funktionellen Transplantat und ohne Visus-kompromittierende Begleiterkrankungen (n = 58) eine bestkorrigierte Sehstärke von ≥ 0,5 in 91 %, von ≥ 0,8 in 63 %, von ≥ 1,0 in 39 % und von ≥ 1,2 in 7 % der Fälle. Ein Jahr postoperativ erhöhte sich diese Verteilung auf ≥ 0,5 in 98 %, ≥ 0,8 in 88 %, ≥ 1,0 in 64 % und ≥ 1,2 in 10 %. Intraoperative Komplikationen wurden in 12 Fällen (10 %) verzeichnet. Die häufigsten postoperativen Komplikationen waren eine klinisch signifikante Transplantatablösung (14 %) bzw. das primäre Transplantatversagen (18 %).
Schlussfolgerung
Die vorliegende Studie ist die größte Studie konsekutiver DMEK Operationen in Österreich. Sie bestätigt auf Grund exzellenter Visusergebnisse, rascher Restitution des Visus, sowie niedriger Komplikationsrate die Vorrangstellung der DMEK bei endothelialen Erkrankungen gegenüber alternativen Keratoplastik Methoden. Auch bei der Sekundärtransplantation nach primärer lamellierender oder perforierender Keratoplastik erscheint die DMEK als die geeignete Methode.
Summary
Background
In the last decade Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) has emerged as the treatment of choice for various diseases of the corneal endothelium, first and foremost Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED). Aim of this study was to assess the first 120 DMEK cases performed at our institution with regards to clinical outcomes and complications. Furthermore, this study intended to explore further indications for this technique.
Material and methods
All procedures were performed by two surgeons following the previously described standardized no-touch DMEK technique. A comprehensive slit lamp examination, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) testing, Scheimpflug tomography and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography were performed preoperatively as well as 3 months, 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Furthermore, all intraoperative and postoperative complications were noted.
Results
In eyes with functional DMEK grafts and good visual prognosis (n = 58), 3 months postoperatively the BCVA was ≥ 0.5 (≥ 20/40) in 91 %, ≥ 0.8 (≥ 20/25) in 63 %, ≥ 1.0 (≥ 20/20) in 39 % and ≥ 1.2 (≥ 20/17) in 7 % of eyes, respectively. One year postoperatively, the distribution of BCVA was ≥ 0.5 (≥ 20/40) in 98 %, ≥ 0.8 (≥ 20/25) in 88 %, ≥ 1.0 (≥ 20/20) in 64 % and ≥ 1.2 (≥ 20/17) in 10 % of eyes, respectively. Intraoperative complications occurred in 10 % of cases. Main postoperative complications were clinically significant graft detachment (14 %) and primary graft failure (18 %).
Conclusions
We present the largest study of consecutive DMEK cases in Austria reported to date. DMEK provides relatively quick and nearly complete visual rehabilitation in a vast majority of patients operated on for endothelial diseases. Complications were generally rare and manageable when they occurred. Our results suggest that the scope of indications for DMEK might be widened, for example for managing lamellar or penetrating keratoplasty cases with poor visual outcome.
Literatur
Dirisamer M, Ham L, Dapena I, et al. Efficacy of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: clinical outcome of 200 consecutive cases after a learning curve of 25 cases. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(11):1435–43.
Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, et al. Endothelial keratoplasty: fellow eyes comparison of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2011;30(12):1382–6.
Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(6):1082–90.e2.
Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Droutsas K, et al. Standardized „no-touch“ technique for descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(1):88–94.
Melles GR, Eggink FA, Lander F, et al. A surgical technique for posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Cornea. 1998;17(6):618–26.
Melles GR, Lander F, Beekhuis WH, et al. Posterior lamellar keratoplasty for a case of pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127(3):340–1.
Melles GR, Wijdh RH, Nieuwendaal CP. A technique to excise the descemet membrane from a recipient cornea (descemetorhexis). Cornea. 2004;23(3):286–8.
Gorovoy MS. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2006;25(8):886–9.
Melles GR, Kamminga N. [Techniques for posterior lamellar keratoplasty through a scleral incision]. Ophthalmologe. 2003;100(9):689–95.
Price FW, Jr., Price MO. Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 50 eyes: a refractive neutral corneal transplant. J Refract Surg (Thorofare, NJ: 1995). 2005;21(4):339–45.
Dapena I, Ham L, Melles GR. Endothelial keratoplasty: DSEK/DSAEK or DMEK–the thinner the better? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(4):299–307.
Melles GR. Posterior lamellar keratoplasty: DLEK to DSEK to DMEK. Cornea. 2006;25(8):879–81.
Reinhart WJ, Musch DC, Jacobs DS, et al. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty as an alternative to penetrating keratoplasty a report by the american academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(1):209–18.
Li JY, Terry MA, Goshe J, et al. Three-year visual acuity outcomes after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(6):1126–9.
McCauley MB, Price MO, Fairchild KM, et al. Prospective study of visual outcomes and endothelial survival with Descemet membrane automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2011;30(3):315–9.
Melles GR, Lander F, Rietveld FJ. Transplantation of Descemet’s membrane carrying viable endothelium through a small scleral incision. Cornea. 2002;21(4):415–8.
Melles GR, Ong TS, Ververs B, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea. 2006;25(8):987–90.
Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM, et al. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2361–8.
Studeny P, Farkas A, Vokrojova M, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with a stromal rim (DMEK-S). Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(7):909–14.
Dapena I, Ham L, Droutsas K, et al. Learning curve in Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: first series of 135 consecutive cases. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(11):2147–54.
Monnereau C, Quilendrino R, Dapena I, et al. Multicenter study of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: first case series of 18 surgeons. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2014;132(10):1192–8.
Ham L, Balachandran C, Verschoor CA, et al. Visual rehabilitation rate after isolated descemet membrane transplantation: descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(3):252–5.
Groeneveld-van Beek EA, Lie JT, van der Wees J, et al. Standardized ‚no-touch‘ donor tissue preparation for DALK and DMEK: harvesting undamaged anterior and posterior transplants from the same donor cornea. Acta ophthalmologica. 2013;91(2):145–50.
Lie JT, Birbal R, Ham L, et al. Donor tissue preparation for descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. J Cataract Refractive Surg. 2008;34(9):1578–83.
Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Ham L, et al. Graft detachment rate. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(4):847-.e1.
Dapena I, Ham L, Moutsouris K, et al. Incidence of recipient Descemet membrane remnants at the donor-to-stromal interface after descemetorhexis in endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(12):1689–90.
Liarakos VS, Dapena I, Ham L, et al. Intraocular graft unfolding techniques in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2013;131(1):29–35.
Yoeruek E, Rubino G, Bayyoud T, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in vitrectomized eyes: clinical results. Cornea. 2014.
Baydoun L, van Dijk K, Dapena I, et al. Repeat Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty after complicated primary Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2014.
Dirisamer M, Parker J, Naveiras M, et al. Identifying causes for poor visual outcome after DSEK/DSAEK following secondary DMEK in the same eye. Acta ophthalmol. 2013;91(2):131–9.
Rudolph M, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, et al. Corneal higher-order aberrations after Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(3):528–35.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luft, N., Priglinger, S.G., Pretzl, J. et al. Descemet-Membran-Endothelkeratoplastik (DMEK) – Klinische Ergebnisse der ersten 120 Fälle. Spektrum Augenheilkd. 29, 10–18 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00717-015-0258-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00717-015-0258-5