Is There a Cutoff in Favor of Penetrating Keratoplasty Rather than Endothelial Keratoplasty for Long-Standing Endothelial Decompensation?

Abstract

Endothelial keratoplasty (EK) has evolved to become the standard of care over traditional penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for treating isolated corneal endothelial disease. EK provides numerous advantages including faster, more reliable visual rehabilitation, along with a lower allograft rejection rate. There are some situations, however, in which EK may not necessarily be the best option, and PK should at least be considered. In such situations, a careful weighing and balancing needs to be done in conjunction with the patient.

Zusammenfassung

Die endotheliale Keratoplastik (EK) hat sich zum Therapiestandard entwickelt und wird bei der Behandlung der isolierten endothelialen Erkrankung der Hornhaut der herkömmlichen penetrierenden Keratoplastik (PK) vorgezogen. Die EK bietet zahlreiche Vorteile, darunter eine schnellere und zuverlässigere visuelle Rehabilitation sowie eine geringere Abstoßungsrate des Allotransplantats. Es gibt aber einige Situationen, in denen die EK nicht unbedingt die bessere Option darstellt und eine PK wenigstens in Betracht gezogen werden sollte. In solchen Situationen müssen die Vor- und Nachteile zusammen mit dem Patienten sorgfältig abgewogen werden.

Key words

endothelial keratoplasty - penetrating keratoplasty - graft rejection

Schlüsselwörter

endotheliale Keratoplastik - penetrierende Keratoplastik - Transplantatabstoßung

Publication History

Received: 03 December 2018

Accepted: 09 January 2019

Article published online:
10 October 2019

• References

• 1 Zirm E. Eine erfolgreiche totale Keratoplastik. Arch Ophthalmol 1906; 64: 580-593
• 2 Flockerzi E, Maier P, Bohringer D. et al. Trends in Corneal Transplantation from 2001 to 2016 in Germany: A Report of the DOG-Section Cornea and its Keratoplasty Registry. Am J Ophthalmol 2018; 188: 91-98
• 3 Melles GRJ, Eggink FAGJ, Lander F. et al. A surgical technique for posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Cornea 1998; 17: 618-626
• 4 Melles GRJ, Lander F, Nieuwendaal C. Sutureless, posterior lamellar keratoplasty: a case report of a modified technique. Cornea 2002; 21: 325-327
• 5 Terry MA, Ousley PJ. Deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty in the first United States patients: early clinical results. Cornea 2001; 20: 239-243
• 6 Terry MA, Ousley PJ. Small-incision deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty (DLEK): six-month results in the first prospective clinical study. Cornea 2005; 24: 59-65
• 7 Melles GR, Wijdh RH, Nieuwendaal CP. A technique to excise the descemet membrane from a recipient cornea (descemetorhexis). Cornea 2004; 23: 286-288
• 8 Price jr. FW, Price MO. Descemetʼs stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 50 eyes: a refractive neutral corneal transplant. J Refract Surg 2005; 21: 339-345
• 9 Price jr. FW, Price MO. Descemetʼs stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 200 eyes. Early challenges and techniques to enhance donor adherence. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32: 411-418
• 10 Gorovoy MS. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2006; 25: 886-889
• 11 Tappin M. A method for true endothelial cell (Tencell) transplantation using a custom-made cannula for the treatment of endothelial cell failure. Eye 2007; 21: 775-779
• 12 Melles GR, Ong TS, Ververs B. et al. Preliminary clinical results of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 145: 222-227
• 13 Chamberlain W, Lin CC, Austin A. et al. Descemet Endothelial Thickness Comparison Trial: A Randomized Trial Comparing Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty with Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2019; 126: 19-26
• 14 Heinzelmann S, Bohringer D, Eberwein P. et al. Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty from a single centre study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2016; 254: 515-522
• 15 Schrittenlocher S, Bachmann B, Tiurbe AM. et al. Impact of preoperative visual acuity on Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) outcome. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019; 257: 321-329
• 16 Maier AK, Gundlach E, Gonnermann J. et al. Fellow Eye Comparison of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty and Penetrating Keratoplasty. Cornea 2013; 32: 1344-1348
• 17 Anshu A, Price MO, Price jr. FW. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemetʼs membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 536-540
• 18 Rudolph M, Laaser K, Bachmann BO. et al. Corneal higher-order aberrations after Descemetʼs membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 528-535
• 19 Dapena I, Yeh RY, Baydoun L. et al. Potential causes of incomplete visual rehabilitation at 6 months postoperative after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2013; 156: 780-788
• 20 Van Dijk K, Parker J, Liarakos VS. et al. Incidence of irregular astigmatism eligible for contact lens fitting after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013; 39: 1036-1046
• 21 Morishige N, Chikama T, Yamada N. et al. Effect of preoperative duration of stromal edema in bullous keratopathy on early visual acuity after endothelial keratoplasty. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 303-308
• 22 Chaurasia S, Price MO, McKee Y. et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty combined with epithelial debridement and mitomycin-C application for Fuchs dystrophy with preoperative subepithelial fibrosis or anterior basement membrane dystrophy. Cornea 2014; 33: 335-339