4.4 Article

Quarter-Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty: One- to Two-Year Clinical Outcomes

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages 277-282

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002127

Keywords

DMEK; corneal transplantation; visual acuity; endothelial cell density

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose:To report clinical outcomes of the first Quarter-Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (Quarter-DMEK) case series performed for central Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy.Methods:This is a prospective, interventional case series analyzing the clinical outcomes of 19 eyes of 19 patients with central Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy, that is, with guttae predominantly in the 6- to 7-mm optical zone, who underwent unilateral Quarter-DMEK at a tertiary referral center. Main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), and postoperative complications. Included eyes had up to 2 years of postoperative follow-up.Results:At 6 months postoperatively, all eyes reached a BCVA of >= 20/40 (>= 0.5): 18 of 19 eyes (95%) with >= 20/25 (>= 0.8) and 9 of 19 eyes (42%) with >= 20/20 (>= 1.0). Thereafter, BCVA remained stable up to 2 years postoperatively. The mean donor ECD decreased from 2842 139 cells/mm(2) (n = 19) before implantation to 913 +/- 434 cells/mm(2) (-68%) at 6 months (n = 19), 869 +/- 313 cells/mm(2) (-70%) at 12 months (n = 18), and 758 +/- 225 cells/mm(2) (-74%) at 24 months (n = 13) after Quarter-DMEK. Visually significant graft detachment requiring rebubbling occurred in 8 of 19 eyes (42%).Conclusions:Quarter-DMEK surgery yields visual outcomes similar to those of conventional DMEK and may potentially quadruple the availability of endothelial grafts. Further modifications of the graft preparation and the surgical technique may improve clinical outcomes in terms of lower ECD decrease and fewer graft detachments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available