» Articles » PMID: 37714670

Belgian Endothelial Surgical Transplant of the Cornea (BEST Cornea) Protocol: Clinical and Patient-reported Outcomes of Ultra-Thin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) Versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty...

Abstract

Objectives: Corneal blindness is the third most frequent cause of blindness globally. Damage to the corneal endothelium is a leading indication for corneal transplantation, which is typically performed by lamellar endothelial keratoplasty. There are two conventional surgical techniques: Ultra-Thin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) and Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK). The purpose of this study is to compare both techniques.

Methods And Analysis: The trial compares UT-DSAEK and DMEK in terms of clinical and patient reported outcomes using a pragmatic, parallel, multicentric, randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation with a sample size of 220 participants across 11 surgical centres. The primary outcome is the change in best-corrected visual acuity at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include corrected and uncorrected vision, refraction, proportion of high vision, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and VFQ25), endothelial cell counts and corneal thickness at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up appointments. Adverse events will also be compared 12 months postoperatively.

Ethics And Dissemination: The protocol was reviewed by ethical committees of 11 participating centres with the sponsor centre issuing the final definitive approval. The results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, by patient partner groups and open access in peer-reviewed journals.

Governance Of The Trial: Both, trial management group and trial steering committee, are installed with representatives of all stakeholders involved including surgeons, corneal bankers, patients and external experts.

Trial Registration Number: NCT05436665.

Citing Articles

A New Device and Method for Endothelial Graft Preparation in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK): A Preliminary Feasibility and Technical Evaluation.

Franco de Moraes Filho L, Gomide Vilela de Sousa Franco C, Isaac D, Louzada R, Avila M, Magacho L Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e76817.

PMID: 39897228 PMC: 11786972. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.76817.

References
1.
Muijzer M, Hoven C, Frank L, Vink G, Wisse R . A machine learning approach to explore predictors of graft detachment following posterior lamellar keratoplasty: a nationwide registry study. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):17705. PMC: 9586999. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-22223-y. View

2.
Goldich Y, Showail M, Avni-Zauberman N, Perez M, Ulate R, Elbaz U . Contralateral eye comparison of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 159(1):155-9.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.10.009. View

3.
Rosser D, Cousens S, Murdoch I, Fitzke F, Laidlaw D . How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements?. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44(8):3278-81. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.02-1100. View

4.
Busin M, Albe E . Does thickness matter: ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014; 25(4):312-8. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000071. View

5.
Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann B, Cursiefen C, Kruse F . Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012; 153(6):1082-90.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.12.012. View