0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      DMEK outcome after one year – Results from a large multicenter study in Germany

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) accounts for >50% of all corneal transplants in Germany. So far, no data from such a large multicenter study have been published.

          Methods

          This retrospective study included 3200 DMEKs at seven departments performed for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) or bullous keratopathy (BK). We evaluated best corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logMAR), endothelial cell density (ECD, cells/mm 2), minimal corneal thickness (CT, μm), rebubbling‐, primary transplant failure‐ and immune reaction‐rate. Changes over time were evaluated by linear mixed models for repeated measures and correlation with case number by center by weighted linear regression.

          Results

          For patients without vision‐limiting comorbidities (74% of all analysed eyes, n = 2270), mean BCVA improved from 0.6 ± 0.4 logMAR to 0.2 ± 0.2 logMAR 6 months ( p < 0.001, n = 1441) and 0.1 ± 0.2 logMAR 12 months ( p = 0.001, n = 1402) postoperatively. BK‐ had a worse BCVA compared to FECD‐patients (0.3 ± 0.5 vs. 0.1 ± 0.2 logMAR [ p < 0.001] at 1 year). ECD declined from 2465 ± 259 cells/mm 2 ( n = 2876 preoperatively) to 1587 ± 433 cells/mm 2 after 12 months ( p < 0.001, n = 1237). Mean rebubbling rate was 0.4 ± 0.7/eye. 784 eyes (25%) received at least one rebubbling. More rebubblings correlated with a lower ECD, a worse BCVA, a higher CT, and higher transplant failure and rejection rates ( p < 0.001, p = 0.013 for BCVA at 12 months). A single rebubbling did not influence the BCVA ( p = 0.785). Graft failure rate was 3% ( n = 67), rejection rate 1.5% ( n = 48).

          Conclusion

          Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty increases visual acuity with low transplant failure‐ and rejection‐rates. FECD has a better outcome than BK. Since a quarter of all patients need a rebubbling, this should be included in the informed consent. Remarkably, one rebubbling has no influence on the outcome.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty: Safety and Outcomes

          To review the published literature on the safety and outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for the surgical treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Posterior lamellar keratoplasty: DLEK to DSEK to DMEK.

            G Melles (2006)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.

              To evaluate visual outcome and endothelial cell survival after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in comparison with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Single-center, retrospective, consecutive case series. Thirty-eight eyes of 38 consecutive patients undergoing DMEK, who completed a 6-month follow-up, were compared with 35 eyes of 35 consecutive patients undergoing DSAEK for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy or pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Main outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (in logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution [logMAR] units) and endothelial cell density within a 6-month follow-up. Best-corrected visual acuity increased from 0.70 ± 0.48 logMAR and 0.75 ± 0.32 logMAR before surgery to 0.21 ± 0.14 logMAR and 0.48 ± 0.19 logMAR 3 months after DMEK and DSAEK (P < .001), respectively, and to 0.17 ± 0.12 logMAR and 0.36 ± 0.15 logMAR 6 months after DMEK and DSAEK (P < .001), respectively. Endothelial cell density decreased from 2575 ± 260 cells/mm(2) and 2502 ± 220 cells/mm(2) before surgery to 1498 ± 244 cells/mm(2) and 1778 ± 420 cells/mm(2) 3 months after DMEK and DSAEK (P < .001), respectively, and to 1520 ± 299 cells/mm(2) and 1532 ± 495 cells/mm(2) 6 months after DMEK and DSAEK (P = .483), respectively. Central corneal thickness decreased from 652 ± 92 μm before surgery to 517 ± 45 μm 6 months after DMEK, and from 698 ± 137 μm before surgery to 618 ± 66 μm 6 months after DSAEK. DMEK provided faster and more complete visual rehabilitation when compared with DSAEK. However, there were no significant differences concerning endothelial cell survival within a 6-month follow-up. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Acta Ophthalmologica
                Acta Ophthalmologica
                Wiley
                1755-375X
                1755-3768
                March 2023
                September 30 2022
                March 2023
                : 101
                : 2
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Ophthalmology University Hospital Düsseldorf Düsseldorf Germany
                [2 ] Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne University of Cologne Cologne Germany
                [3 ] Department of Ophthalmology University Hospital Leipzig Leipzig Germany
                [4 ] Eye Center, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine University of Freiburg Freiburg im Breisgau Germany
                [5 ] Department of Ophthalmology, Charité Universitätsmedizin – Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin Humbolt‐Universität zu Berlin und Berlin Institute of Health Berlin Germany
                [6 ] Department of Ophthalmology University Hospital Tübingen Tübingen Germany
                [7 ] Department of Ophthalmology Saarland University Medical Center Homburg/Saar Germany
                [8 ] Department of Ophthalmology University Hospital Cologne Cologne Germany
                Article
                10.1111/aos.15257
                36178238
                a657810e-93cd-4054-992d-bc90c95a713b
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article