4.6 Article

One-year outcome after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) comparing sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 20% versus 100% air for anterior chamber tamponade

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 101, Issue 7, Pages 902-908

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309653

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation [FOR 2240]
  2. EU COST [BM1302]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To investigate 1-year clinical outcome and complication rates following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) with sulfur hexafluoride 20% (SF(6)20%) anterior chamber tamponade compared with conventionally used 100% air for primary graft attachment during DMEK surgery. Methods Records of 1112 consecutive DMEKs were reviewed retrospectively and grouped by anterior chamber tamponade used during DMEK surgery (SF(6)20% vs 100% air). Outcome measures included intraocular pressure (IOP), best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD) and central corneal thickness (CCT) at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after DMEK surgery. Complication rates were assessed, including intraoperative and postoperative complications, and graft detachment rate requiring rebubbling. Results A total of 854 cases were included in this study. In 105 cases (12.3%), DMEK was performed with SF(6)20%, and in 749 cases (87.7%) 100% air was used for anterior chamber tamponade. Outcome results for IOP, BSCVA, ECD and CCT at all follow-up time points were comparable for both anterior chamber tamponade groups without statistical significant differences (p=0.05), but graft detachment rate requiring rebubbling was significantly lower in the SF(6)20% group (p<0.001). Conclusion Whereas SF(6)20% anterior chamber tamponade does not seem to negatively affect the clinical outcome of DMEK surgery within the first postoperative year, use of SF(6)20% significantly reduces the rate of rebubblings.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available