Microthin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial

被引:24
|
作者
Matsou, Artemis [1 ,2 ]
Pujari, Rathin [1 ,2 ]
Sarwar, Hammad [1 ,2 ]
Rana, Mrinal [1 ,2 ]
Myerscough, James [1 ,2 ]
Thomson, Susan M. [1 ,2 ]
Nandakumar, Girinath [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Jufen [3 ]
Rajan, Madhavan S. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Cambridge Univ Hosp, Dept Ophthalmol, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, England
[2] Cambridge Eye Res Ctr, Cambridge, England
[3] Anglia Ruskin Univ, Fac Hlth Educ Med & Social Care, Sch Med, Vis & Eye Res Inst, Cambridge, England
关键词
DMEK; thin DSAEK; ultrathin DSAEK; microthin DSAEK; endothelial keratoplasty; VISUAL OUTCOMES; MULTICENTER; DSAEK; EYES; METAANALYSIS; THICKNESS; GRAFT;
D O I
10.1097/ICO.0000000000002601
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare visual outcomes, complications, and vision-related quality of life (QoL) after microthin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (MT-DSAEK) versus Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for the management of corneal endothelial dysfunction in Fuchs dystrophy. Methods: This is a prospective, double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients with visually significant endothelial decompensation from Fuchs dystrophy were prospectively randomized to receive MT-DSAEK or DMEK surgery. The primary outcome was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included refraction, keratometry, endothelial cell count, complications, and vision-related QoL at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Results: A total of 56 eyes of 56 patients were enrolled, 28 in each group. Postoperatively, LogMAR mean BSCVA in the MT-DSAEK group was 0.17 +/- 0.08 and 0.11 +/- 0.09 at 6 and 12 months compared with 0.09 +/- 0.13 and 0.04 +/- 0.13 after DMEK (P = 0.03, P = 0.002 respectively) with the DMEK cohort achieving 3.5 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution letters better BSCVA at 1 year compared with MT-DSAEK. Complication rates were similar with 3.5% rebubbling rate in both groups, 1 primary graft failure in DMEK and a single endothelial rejection in the MT-DSAEK arm. Vision-related QoL was comparable at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, and no eyes demonstrated loss of vision from preoperative BSCVA. Conclusions: DMEK surgery resulted in significantly better BSCVA at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively compared with MT-DSAEK. Patient satisfaction was similar with no differences reported in vision-related QoL scores, as was the complications profile between groups. Thus, our results favor DMEK as the better choice procedure for eyes with Fuchs-related corneal decompensation without ocular comorbidities.
引用
收藏
页码:1117 / 1125
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty vs Microthin Descemet Membrane Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Randomised Controlled Trial
    Pujari, Rathin
    Matsou, Artemis
    Sarwar, Hammad
    Rana, Mrinal
    Thomson, Susan
    Myerscough, James
    Nandakumar, Giri
    Rajan, Madhavan
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2020, 61 (07)
  • [2] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty
    Tourtas, Theofilos
    Laaser, Kathrin
    Bachmann, Bjoern O.
    Cursiefen, Claus
    Kruse, Friedrich E.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 153 (06) : 1082 - 1090
  • [3] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty and Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Woo, Jyh-Haur
    Ang, Marcus
    Htoon, Hla Myint
    Tan, Donald
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2019, 207 : 288 - 303
  • [4] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
    Dunker, Suryan L.
    Dickman, Mor M.
    Wisse, Robert P. L.
    Nobacht, Siamak
    Wijdh, Robert H. J.
    Bartels, Marjolijn C.
    Tang, Mei L.
    van den Biggelaar, Frank J. H. M.
    Kruit, Pieter J.
    Nuijts, Rudy M. M. A.
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2020, 127 (09) : 1152 - 1159
  • [5] A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Microthin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty With Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty: Two-Year Report
    Pujari, Rathin
    Matsou, Artemis
    Kean, Jane
    Zhang, Jufen
    Rajan, Madhavan S.
    CORNEA, 2022, 41 (12) : 1519 - 1524
  • [6] Descemet Endothelial Thickness Comparison Trial A Randomized Trial Comparing Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty with Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty
    Chamberlain, Winston
    Lin, Charles C.
    Austin, Ariana
    Schubach, Nicholas
    Clover, Jameson
    McLeod, Stephen D.
    Porco, Travis C.
    Lietman, Thomas M.
    Rose-Nussbaumer, Jennifer
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2019, 126 (01) : 19 - 26
  • [7] Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty/Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty
    Singh, Abhimanyu
    Zarei-Ghanavati, Mehran
    Avadhanam, Venkata
    Liu, Christopher
    CORNEA, 2017, 36 (11) : 1437 - 1443
  • [8] Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis
    Leru Zhu
    Yi Zha
    Jianqiu Cai
    Yanling Zhang
    International Ophthalmology, 2018, 38 : 897 - 905
  • [9] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty in Complicated Vitrectomized Eyes
    Mimouni, Michael
    Sorkin, Nir
    Slomovic, Jacqueline
    Kisilevsky, Eli
    Mednick, Zale
    Cohen, Eyal
    Trinh, Tanya
    Santaella, Gisella
    Chan, Clara C.
    Rootman, David S.
    Slomovic, Allan R.
    CURRENT EYE RESEARCH, 2021, 46 (09) : 1283 - 1290
  • [10] Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis
    Zhu, Leru
    Zha, Yi
    Cai, Jianqiu
    Zhang, Yanling
    INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 38 (02) : 897 - 905