Cystoid macular oedema after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty

2021 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2021-319455
Author(s):  
Damien Guindolet ◽  
Odile Huynh ◽  
Gilles C Martin ◽  
Hugo Disegni ◽  
Georges Azar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Oedema ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Cystoid Macular Oedema ◽  
Bullous Keratopathy ◽  
Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane ◽  
Spectral Domain Oct ◽  
History Of ◽  
Clinically Significant

AimsTo determine the incidence and risk factors of cystoid macular oedema (CMO) following descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) with or without combined cataract surgery (triple-DMEK).MethodsWe reviewed the records of patients who underwent DMEK surgery alone or triple-DMEK performed at the Rothschild Foundation Hospital (Paris, France) between January 2019 and March 2020. Patients with pre-existing CMO observed on the preoperative macular optical coherence tomography (OCT) were excluded. Spectral-domain OCT was performed in patients with postoperative visual impairment. Data regarding comorbidities, intraoperative characteristics and postoperative treatments or complications were collected and analysed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.ResultsTwenty three of 246 eyes (9.36%) developed clinically significant (cs)-CMO after DMEK. Triple-DMEK was not associated with a higher risk to develop CMO (12.2% in DMEK alone and 6.1% in triple-DMEK). Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK ; 39.1% vs 9%; OR=3.5 (1.0 to 11.8), p=0.045) and epiretinal membrane (ERM; 39.1% vs 7.7%; OR=10.5 (3.4 to 32.3), p<0.001) were more frequently observed in patients who developed CMO. The occurrence of hyphaema during surgery was statistically associated with postoperative CMO (13% vs 1.3%; OR=7.1 (1.0 to 48.8) p=0.045). Peroperative epithelial debridement was statistically associated with postoperative CMO (65.2% vs 33.2%, p=0.005), but only in univariate analysis.ConclusionsWe identified a clinically significant CMO incidence of 9.35% after DMEK. Patients with a history of ERM, PBK and intraoperative hyphaema may be at risk of developing CMO after DMEK surgery and should be monitored.

Cystoid macular oedema following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty

2014 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Heinzelmann ◽  
Philip Maier ◽  
Daniel Böhringer ◽  
Silja Hüther ◽  
Philipp Eberwein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Macular Oedema ◽  
Cystoid Macular Oedema ◽  
Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane

scholarly journals Descemet membrane suturing to manage recurrent graft detachment in a patient with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty on failed penetrating keratoplasty

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 251584142110277
Author(s):  
Zahra Ashena ◽  
Thomas Hickman-Casey ◽  
Mayank A. Nanavaty
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Penetrating Keratoplasty ◽  
Anterior Segment ◽  
Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane ◽  
Ocular Coherence Tomography ◽  
Corrected Visual Acuity ◽  
Intracameral Injection ◽  
History Of

A 65-year-old patient with history of keratoconus, mild cataract and penetrating keratoplasty over 30 years ago developed corneal oedema subsequent of graft failure with best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of counting fingers. He underwent a successful cataract surgery combined with a 7.25 mm Descemet’s Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) with Sodium Hexafluoride (SF6) gas. His cornea remained oedematous inferiorly at 4 weeks, despite two subsequent re-bubbling due to persistent DMEK detachment inferiorly. This was managed by three radial full thickness 10-0 nylon sutures placed in the inferior cornea along with intracameral injection of air. Following this, his anterior segment ocular coherence tomography (OCT) confirmed complete attachment of the graft, and the sutures were removed 4 weeks later. Unaided visual acuity was 20/63 and BCVA was 20/32 after 8 months. DMEK suturing can be helpful in persistent DMEK detachments, which is refractory to repeated re-bubbling due to uneven posterior surface of previous PK.

scholarly journals Effects of uncomplicated Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty on the central retinal thickness

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tibor Lohmann ◽  
Sabine Baumgarten ◽  
Niklas Plange ◽  
Peter Walter ◽  
Matthias Fuest
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Retinal Thickness ◽  
Bullous Keratopathy ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane ◽  
Related Risk ◽  
Department Of Ophthalmology ◽  
Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy

Abstract Purpose To determine retinal thickness (RT) changes and the incidence of macular edema after uncomplicated Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK-ME) in patients without ME risk factors. Methods In this retrospective study, 107 pseudophakic eyes of 74 patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) (79.4%) or bullous keratopathy (BK) (20.6%) underwent DMEK surgery between 2016 and 2019 at the Department of Ophthalmology, RWTH Aachen University. Patients with intra- or postoperative complications as well as pre-existing risk factors for ME were excluded. Macular spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) measurements were performed before, 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after surgery. Retinal thickness (RT) was analyzed in the central foveal 1 mm (CSF), parafoveal 3 mm and 6 mm subfield. Results Eight eyes (7.5%) developed DMEK-ME 1 month after surgery. Six DMEK-ME eyes (75%) were rebubbled, compared with 31.3% (31 of 99; P = 0.02) of the non DMEK-ME eyes. DMEK-ME eyes had a significantly thicker CSF 1 month after surgery (432.0 ± 97.6 μm) compared with non-DMEK-ME eyes (283.7 ± 22.2 μm; P = 0.01). The other subfields and time points showed no significant RT changes. DMEK-ME significantly impaired BSCVA (0.38 ± 0.92 logMAR) only 1 month after surgery in comparison to the non DMEK-ME eyes (0.23 ± 0.87 logMAR, P = 0.015). Conclusion Excluding systemic and surgery-related risk factors, rebubbling increases the risk of DMEK-ME. Performing a CSF scan 1 month after surgery, particularly in rebubbled eyes, efficiently detects DMEK-ME and allows the prompt initiation of treatment, e.g., topical corticosteroid and non-steroidal (NSAID) eye drops.

scholarly journals Comparison of ACIOL Exchange and Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty with ACIOL Retention and Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty in the Setting of Pseudophakic Bullous Keratopathy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Biana Dubinsky-Pertzov ◽  
Gissela Santaella ◽  
Nir Sorkin ◽  
Lior Or ◽  
Inbal Gazit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Graft Failure ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Bullous Keratopathy ◽  
Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane ◽  
Exchange Group ◽  
Retention Group ◽  
Demographical Data

Abstract Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes and complications of anterior chamber intraocular lens (ACIOL) exchange and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) with ACIOL retention and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in patients with PBK.Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. Patients with ACIOL who underwent endothelial keratoplasty procedure due to PBK between 2012-2018 in two tertiary medical centers, were identified. Clinical and demographical data including preoperative and postoperative characteristics were collected.Results: Thirteen eyes in the “DMEK and ACIOL exchange” group and 15 in the “DSAEK and ACIOL retention” group were included in the analysis. Mean BCVA six months postoperatively was 0.51±0.20 LogMAR (Snellen 20/64) and 0.57±0.22 LogMAR (Snellen 20/83) in the “DMEK and ACIOL exchange” group and “DSAEK and ACIOL retention” group, respectively (P=0.38). Graft failure occurred in 6 eyes (40%) in the “DSAEK and ACIOL retention” group; four of them were secondary failures occurring at an average follow-up time of 15±11.9 months. In the “DMEK and ACIOL exchange” group, graft failure occurred in one eye and was a primary failure (P=0.046). In the “DMEK and ACIOL exchange” group, postoperative complications were seen in 4 eyes (30.7%). No postoperative complications were recorded in the “DSAEK and ACIOL retention” group (P=0.035).Conclusion: Despite the lower complication rate, the higher incidence of graft failure and the need for second keratoplasty in the DSAEK group along with the similar visual outcomes, might suggest that in the indication of PBK, ACIOL exchange with DMEK offers a good alternative to ACIOL retention with DSAEK.

Descemet-stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty—A Review

2011 ◽  
Vol 04 (01) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Anita M Hwang ◽  
Jimmy K Lee ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Penetrating Keratoplasty ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Bullous Keratopathy ◽  
Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Corneal Surface ◽  
Visual Rehabilitation ◽  
Descemet Membrane ◽  
Structural Recovery ◽  
Corneal Endothelial Dysfunction

Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) has become the procedure of choice to treat corneal endothelial dysfunction. The technique involves replacing the diseased host endothelium with a graft consisting of a thin layer of posterior stroma, Descemet membrane, and endothelium. In comparison to penetrating keratoplasty (PK), DSAEK confers quicker visual and structural recovery with absence of corneal surface incisions or sutures, and limits astigmatism. DSAEK has been proved to successfully achieve favorable visual acuity and graft clarity in bullous keratopathy, posterior polymorphous dystrophy, and failed PK grafts. This article discusses various DSAEK surgical techniques, short- and longterm post-surgical results, complications, and comparisons with other types of keratoplasty. With the advent of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), in which only Descemet membrane is transplanted, visual rehabilitation may be attained sooner.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document