4.4 Article

Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Outcomes During the Initial Learning Curve of Cornea Fellows

期刊

CORNEA
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 806-811

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001957

关键词

DMEK; endothelial dystrophy; bullous keratopathy; lamellar keratoplasty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To describe the outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) performed by cornea fellows during their initial learning curve. Methods: This prospective study included the first consecutive series of 53 DMEK surgeries performed by 14 corneal fellows at Sorocaba's Ophthalmological Hospital. Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, endothelial cell density (ECD), and complications were evaluated. Results: Of the eyes without ocular comorbidities and with complete visual acuity measurements, 97% of 33 eyes achieved a best spectacle-corrected visual acuity of >= 20/40 in 6 months. The mean (SD) preoperative donor ECD was 2453 (361) cells/mm(2), and at 6 months postoperatively, the in vivo mean ECD (SD) was found to be 1300 (587) cells/mm2, an average loss of 47%. Preparation of the DMEK graft by the cornea fellows was successful in all cases. There were 9 eyes (17%) that experienced partial graft detachment requiring rebubbling. A total of 3 eyes (5.7%) failed to clear the cornea, all of which were managed with successful secondary endothelial keratoplasty. None of the eyes experienced pupillary block. Conclusions: Establishing DMEK in a fellowship program was successful with the supervision of an experienced DMEK surgeon. Even without the facility of a prestripped DMEK graft by an eye bank and with no backup tissue, no surgery was canceled because of graft preparation failure. Good visual outcomes were achieved with satisfactory ECD at 6-month follow-up, with an acceptable complication rate. Even the 3 eyes that failed to clear the cornea evolved well after secondary endothelial keratoplasty by the cornea fellows.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据