• Users Online: 367
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Abstracting and Indexing Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
EDITORIAL
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 343-344

DMEK calling


1 Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton, United Kingdom
2 Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton, UK; Eye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton; Tongdean Eye Clinic, Hove, United Kingdom

Date of Web Publication15-Nov-2016

Correspondence Address:
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2008-322X.194067

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Perez AV, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Liu C. DMEK calling. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2016;11:343-4

How to cite this URL:
Perez AV, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Liu C. DMEK calling. J Ophthalmic Vis Res [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Sep 19];11:343-4. Available from: http://www.jovr.org/text.asp?2016/11/4/343/194067

The emergence of endothelial keratoplasty (EK) represents the beginning of a new era in the treatment of corneal endothelial disorders which continues to evolve. Fifteen years ago we were performing penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs' dystrophy and bullous keratopathy but nowadays we are performing selective replacement of the diseased endothelial layer. In recent years two techniques of EK have risen and prevailed among others; Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and even more recently Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). In this issue, two articles on EK are published, one on DSAEK and the other on DMEK. [1],[2]

DSAEK is currently the most common type of EK performed worldwide, but published literature has shown that DMEK has better visual outcomes and with current standardised techniques has also similar endothelial cell loss compared with DSAEK. [3],[4],[5],[6] Moreover, the majority of patients preferred DMEK over DSAEK in a contralateral study. [7] DMEK has the lowest risk of immunological rejection of all types of corneal transplantation because it only replaces Descemet's membrane and endothelium. [8]

DMEK graft preparation is less expensive than DSAEK because it does not require a microkeratome. Trained eye bank technicians can currently prepare grafts with low rate of tissue-processing failure. [9] In addition, due to shortage of corneal donors worldwide, the possibility of using one donor cornea for preparing Descemet's membrane for DMEK and full thickness stroma for deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) in eye banks is promising. [10] There are also temptations to split a single Descemet membrane for use in 2 or even 4 patients. [11],[12]

Despite all its advantages, DMEK surgical technique is more challenging than DSAEK and the steep learning curve still remains a major drawback when established DSAEK surgeons consider adopting the technique. [6],[13],[14] In that scenario transition towards DMEK seems to happen gradually and slower than initially predicted. Graft detachment requiring air re-bubbling is common in DMEK; especially during the learning curve. [15] This steep learning curve and higher risk of complications for novice surgeons are main barriers for them to transform from DSAEK to DMEK and decrease their motivation for changing their preferred technique as they already have very good results with DSAEK.

There are steps that can help surgeons to have a smoother transformation from DSAEK to DMEK. Education is the most substantial part. Experiencing the surgical steps in a wet lab is very helpful. Surgeons can practise graft harvesting and handling. They can learn DMEK surgical maneuvers in an artificial chamber. They should be supervised by well-experienced trainers to explain every step and mention the tips and tricks. Publishing and sharing results for DSAEK and DMEK surgery in journals and conferences can help surgeons manage their patients more effectively.

The results of endothelial keratoplasty studies should be published with more details. The studies should cover sufficient sample size (ideally with specific etiology) with least 6 to 12-month follow-up time. Patients should be carefully matched before studies. Although preoperative cornea edema duration has been neglected in many studies, it affects final visual outcomes due to irreversible subepithelial fibrosis. [16] Besides visual acuity measurement; contract sensitivity, light scatter and aberrometry are attractive measurements to give more information about the cornea optical quality. Studies should carefully monitor endothelial loss and rejection after surgery. The endothelial cells should be measured regularly at defined post-operative follow-up times to calculate the rate of loss per year. The relationship between post-operative topical regime and endothelial rejection should be defined clearly. Graft survival curve is very helpful for studies with long-term follow-up. Comparison between pre- and post-operative corneal keratometry and astigmatism are useful for finding out the refractive effects of surgery and more accurately estimating IOL power in triple procedures. Confocal scan is very helpful not only to measure endothelial cells but also to detect cornea haziness in any of the cornea layers (especially the subepithelial and interface areas) and attribute it to the suboptimal postoperative visual acuity outcomes. Finally, it should not be forgotten that performing surgery is to meet patients' needs; so evaluating patient satisfaction gives more information about surgical techniques; especially in terms of comparing them.

Although DMEK has proved superior; DSAEK still could be considered the first option in challenging cases. Situations like aphakia, aniridia, anterior chamber IOLs and glaucoma tube implantations are some examples. As DMEK become the common operation which trainees learn, DSAEK like extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) will become a dying art which only older corneal surgeons or specialists centres can perform. The corneal surgical community should be weary of allowing this to happen, as like ECCE, DSAEK will always be required for special cases.

The future of EK looks exciting with research into new modalities to treat endothelial dysfunction. Recently it has been published cases of complete recovery of corneal transparency after a selective central Descematorrhexis without endothelial transplant. [17] Moreover, gene therapy and tissue engineering-based techniques to treat corneal endothelial dysfunction are currently under development. [18] Once all known problems associated with endothelial cells that includes limited proliferation ability, cellular senescence, fibroblastic transformation during culture as well as difficulties with transplantation of cultured cells will be surpassed, the days of endothelial keratoplasty as we know it will come to an end.

Acknowledgements

*First and second authors have contributed equally in conducting this study.

 
  References Top

1.
Javadi MR, Feizi S, Jafari R, Mirbabaee F, Ownagh V. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy versus pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2016;11:372-378.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Bhandari V, Reddy KJ, Chougale P. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty in south Asian population. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2016;11:368-371.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Giebel AW, Price FW. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty: Prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 2011;118:2368-2373.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ham L, Balachandran C, Verschoor CA, van derWees J, Melles GR. Visual rehabilitation rate after isolated descemet membrane transplantation: Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:252-255.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153:1082-1090.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Hamzaoglu EC, Straiko MD, Mayko ZM, Sales CS, Terry MA. The first 100 eyes of standardized Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus standardized Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2015;122:2193-2199.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Goldich Y, Showail M, Avni-Zauberman N, Perez M, Ulate R, Elbaz U, et al. Contralateral eye comparison of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;159:155-159.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW Jr. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2012;119:536-40.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Keliher C, Engler C, Speck C, Ward D, Farazdaghi S, Jun AS. A comprehensive analysis of eye bank-prepared posterior lamellar corneal tissue for use in endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2009;28:966-970.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Groeneveld-van Beek EA, Lie JT, van der Wees J, Bruinsma M, Melles GR. Standardized 'no-touch' donor tissue preparation for DALK and DMEK: Harvesting undamaged anterior and posterior transplants from the same donor cornea. Acta Ophthalmol 2013;91:145-150.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Weller JM, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Kruse FE, Tourtas T. Splitting of the recipient's Descemet's membrane in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty-Ultrastructure and clinical relevance. Am J Ophthalmol 2016 pii: S0002-9394(16)30433-0.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Müller TM, Lavy I, Baydoun L, Lie JT, Dapena I, Melles GR. Case Report of Quarter-Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty for Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy. Cornea 2016 [Epub ahead of print].  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Green M, Wilkins MR, Comparison of early surgical experience and visual outcomes of DSAEK and DMEK. Cornea 2015;34:1341-1344.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Droutsas K, Giallouros E, Melles G, Chatzistefanou K, Sekundo W. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty: Learning curve of a single surgeon. Cornea 2013;32:1075-1079.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM, Price FW Jr. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty: Prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology 2009;116:2361-2368.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Morishige N, Chikama T, Yamada N, Takahashi N, Morita Y, Nishida T, 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.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Moloney G, Chan UT, Hamilton A, Zahidin AM, Grigg JR, Devasahayam RN. Descemetorhexis for Fuchs' dystrophy. Can J Ophthalmol 2015;50:68-67.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Okumura N, Kinoshita S, Koizumi N. Cell-based approach for treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunction. Cornea 2014;33(Suppl 11):S37-41.  Back to cited text no. 18
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1236    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded3220    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]