Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgeons preferences in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

To explore the attitudes, preferences, and barriers of DMEK among corneal specialists in Saudi Arabia.

Method

An anonymous survey was sent through an online platform to members of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society. The survey was designed to capture data covering: demographic data, practice patterns of keratoplasty techniques, DMEK technique preferences, barriers, and facilitators to performing DMEK.

Results

Thirty-five (33% response rate) surgeons participated in the questionnaire. Sixty-eight percent were in practice for less than or equal to 10 years. Thirteen surgeons were performing DMEK. Participating in any training capacity was observed among surgeons who performed DMEK (92%). The main selection criteria for this procedure were patients with normal anterior chamber anatomy (77%). The main barrier against DMEK adoption among surgeons who do not perform the procedure was the lack of experience (91%). Strategies to help begin performing DMEK were eye banks support (prepared grafts, backup tissue for inadvertent loss), access to wet-lab training courses, and higher surgical volume.

Conclusion

DMEK is not highly performed among corneal specialists in Saudi Arabia; however, there is evident interest in adopting this technique. Strategies toward filling the gap of lacking experience would facilitate the adoption of the procedure. Eye banks play a crucial role by providing prepared tissues, which would lessen part of the technical difficulty.

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

Data availability

Data are available upon a reasonable request from the authors.

References

  1. Fernandez MM, Afshari NA, Fernandez MM et al (2010) Endothelial keratoplasty: from DLEK to DMEK. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 17:5–8

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Price FW, Price MO, Price FW et al (2013) Evolution of endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 32:S28–S32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Terry MA, Ousley PJ, Terry MA et al (2006) Deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty: early complications and their management. Cornea 25:37–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Statistical Report - Eye Bank Association of America (EBAA) (2018) https://restoresight.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2018_Statistical_Report-Complete-1.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2021

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sharma N, Maharana PK, Singhi S et al (2017) Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Indian J Ophthalmol 65:198–209

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Singh A, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Avadhanam V et al (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty/descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 36:1437–1443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhu L, Zha Y, Cai J et al (2018) Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis. Int Ophthalmol 38:897–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Li S, Liu L, Wang W et al (2017) Efficacy and safety of descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 12(12):e0182275

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Pavlovic I, Shajari M, Herrmann E et al (2017) Meta- analysis of postoperative outcome parameters comparing descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 36:1445–1451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deng SX, Lee WB, Hammersmith KM et al (2018) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 125:295–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Price DA, Kelley M, Price FW et al (2018) Five-year graft survival of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (ek) versus descemet stripping ek and the effect of donor sex matching. Ophthalmology 125:1508–1514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chamberlain W, Lin CC, Austin A et al (2019) Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: a randomized trial comparing ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 126:19–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dunker SL, Dickman MM, Wisse RPL et al (2020) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 127(9):1152–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Marziali E et al (2020) Ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a fellow-eye comparison. Eye Vis 7:25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Varadaraj V, Woreta FA, Stoeger CG et al (2020) Surgeon preference for endothelial keratoplasty techniques. Cornea 39:2–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chamberlain W, Austin A, Terry M et al (2016) Survey of experts on current endothelial keratoplasty techniques. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol 65(3):198–209

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kisilevsky E, Srikumaran D, Chew HF (2021) Surgeon preferences for endothelial keratoplasty in Canada. Cornea. Epub ahead of print

  19. Terry MA (2012) Endothelial keratoplasty: why aren’t we all doing descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty? Cornea 31:469–471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yoeruek E, Rubino G, Bayyoud T et al (2015) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in vitrectomized eyes: clinical results. Cornea 34:1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Al-Arfai KM, Yassin SA, Al-Beshri AS et al (2015) Indications and techniques employed for keratoplasty in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia: 6 years of experience. Ann Saudi Med 35:387–393

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Park CY, Lee JK, Gore PK et al (2015) Keratoplasty in the United States: a 10-year review from 2005 through 2014. Ophthalmology 122:2432–2442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM et al (2009) Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology 116:2361–2368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ham L, Dapena I, Van Luijk C et al (2009) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for fuchs endothelial dystrophy: review of the first 50 consecutive cases. Eye 23(10):1990–1998

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dapena I, Ham L, Droutsas K et al (2011) Learning curve in descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: First series of 135 consecutive cases. Ophthalmology 118:2147–2154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Green M, Wilkins MR (2015) Comparison of early surgical experience and visual outcomes of DSAEK and DMEK. Cornea 34(11):1341–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Debellemanière G, Guilbert E, Courtin R et al (2017) Impact of Surgical Learning Curve in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty on Visual Acuity Gain. Cornea 36:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McKee HD, Jhanji V (2017) Learning DMEK from YouTube. Cornea 36:1477–1479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hamzaoglu EC, Straiko MD, Mayko ZM et al (2015) The first 100 eyes of standardized descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus standardized descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 122:2193–2199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rodríguez-Calvo-De-Mora M, Quilendrino R, Ham L et al (2015) Clinical outcome of 500 consecutive cases undergoing descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 122:464–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Alanazi LF, Aldossari SH, Gogandy MA et al (2019) Attitude, beliefs and awareness towards corneal donation in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Ophthalmol 33:121–129

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study was not funded by any agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, P.O. Box 3660, Riyadh, 11481, Saudi Arabia

    Muhannad A. Alnahdi, Nawaf A. Alhabdan, Abdulrahman Alfarhan & Mohammed A. Taha

  2. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Muhannad A. Alnahdi

  3. King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Abdulrahman Alfarhan

  4. King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Mohammed A. Taha

  5. Ophthalmology Division, Surgery Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Mohammed A. Taha

Authors
  1. Muhannad A. Alnahdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nawaf A. Alhabdan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdulrahman Alfarhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammed A. Taha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors participated in the study design. MA and NA participated in the data management and analysis. NA wrote the introduction section, MA wrote the methods and results sections, and AA wrote the discussion section. MA and MT interpreted the results and edited all of the sections. MT critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhannad A. Alnahdi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict or competing interests.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the ethics board of King Abdullah International Medical Research Center.

Consent to participate

All participants voluntarily consented prior completing the questionnaire.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alnahdi, M.A., Alhabdan, N.A., Alfarhan, A. et al. Surgeons preferences in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Int Ophthalmol 42, 3681–3690 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02365-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02365-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation