» Articles » PMID: 38191393

Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty After Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty- Case Series and Review of the Literature

Overview
Journal BMC Ophthalmol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2024 Jan 8
PMID 38191393
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: This study aims to evaluate visual outcome, central corneal thickness, and re-bubbling rate in a cohort with undersized sequential Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) due to endothelial graft decompensation following primary penetrating keratoplasty (PK).

Methods: All patients who received a sequential DMEK (n = 16) or triple DMEK (n = 2) after failed primary PK between November 2020 and June 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Analyzed parameters were corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), central corneal thickness (CCT), re-bubbling rate and graft survival.

Results: 18 eyes of 18 patients were included. All patients underwent a DMEK with undersized graft after failed PK(s). Mean time between the last PK and DMEK was 102 ± 82 weeks. Mean follow-up time was 8.9 ± 4.6 months. CDVA increased significantly from 1.12 ± 0.60 logMAR preoperatively to 0.64 ± 0.49 logMAR 6 weeks postoperatively (p = 0.013). Mean CCT decreased significantly from 807 ± 224 μm before to 573 ± 151 μm 6 weeks after DMEK (p = 0.003). Re-bubbling was necessary in eight eyes (44.4%) after a median time of 7 days. The 12-month Kaplan Meier survival was 66.7%.

Conclusion: In case of endothelial graft decompensation without stromal scars after primary PK, a DMEK can be performed for selected patients who had satisfying CDVA before the endothelial decompensation. Prior to DMEK indication, an AS-OCT should routinely be performed to circularly search for posterior steps at the PK graft margin, as well as shortly after DMEK to exclude a detachment of the endothelial graft. All patients should be informed about a higher re-bubbling rate in comparison to primary DMEK.

References
1.
Schonit S, Maamri A, Zemova E, Munteanu C, Safi T, Daas L . Prevalence and Impact of Cornea Guttata in the Graft After Penetrating Keratoplasty in Germany. Cornea. 2022; 41(12):1495-1502. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002971. View

2.
Hos D, Tuac O, Schaub F, Stanzel T, Schrittenlocher S, Hellmich M . Incidence and Clinical Course of Immune Reactions after Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty: Retrospective Analysis of 1000 Consecutive Eyes. Ophthalmology. 2017; 124(4):512-518. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.12.017. View

3.
Toth G, Berko-Gottel B, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Stachon T, Pluzsik M . Herpes simplex virus PCR in 2230 explanted corneal buttons. Acta Ophthalmol. 2021; 100(1):e77-e82. DOI: 10.1111/aos.14872. View

4.
Alfaro Rangel R, Szentmary N, Lepper S, Daas L, Langenbucher A, Seitz B . 8.5/8.6-mm Excimer Laser-Assisted Penetrating Keratoplasties in a Tertiary Corneal Subspecialty Referral Center: Indications and Outcomes in 107 Eyes. Cornea. 2020; 39(7):806-811. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002327. View

5.
Ang M, Ho H, Wong C, Htoon H, Mehta J, Tan D . Endothelial keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty: an alternative to repeat penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 158(6):1221-1227.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.08.024. View