Secondary DMEK following failed primary DMEK
- PMID: 34076784
- DOI: 10.1007/s10792-021-01890-2
Secondary DMEK following failed primary DMEK
Abstract
Purpose: To report the outcomes of secondary Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) performed for failed primary DMEK.
Methods: The medical records of all patients undergoing secondary DMEK due to failure of primary DMEK were reviewed. Reasons for failure were sought and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD) and complications of secondary DMEK were evaluated.
Results: A total of 10 cases undergoing secondary DMEK following failed primary DMEK were identified. Presumed reasons for failure included donor ECD ≤ 2300 cells/mm2 (n = 4), difficulty during graft preparation (n = 2), graft detachment (n = 2), acute angle closure due to retroiridal air dislocation (n = 1), inverse graft positioning (n = 1) and phacoemulsification (n = 1). Eyes with low visual potential were not excluded from the study group. We should note that one patient (case no7) had both low ECD and graft detachment as reasons for failure and as a result he is counted twice. Median BCVA (decimal fraction) increased from 0.1 (range, 0.01; 0.3) to 0.5 (0.05; 1.0) at one month and remained stable thereafter. A BCVA of 0.5 or higher was achieved in 7 cases at the final follow-up. Mean ECD fell from 2628 ± 284 cells/mm2 to 1391 ± 252cells/mm2 at 6 months (47% reduction) and 959 ± 225cells/mm2 at 24 months (64% reduction) (P ≤ 0.028). Complications included the incomplete removal of the primary graft and mild iris bleeding, decompensation of a preexisting primary open-angle glaucoma and retroiridal air dislocation.
Conclusions: Apart from low donor ECD, surgical challenges, i.e., difficulty with graft preparation, inverse graft positioning, and retroiridal air dislocation, were main reasons for failure of primary DMEK. Secondary DMEK showed a good safety profile and reasonable visual outcomes.
Keywords: DMEK; DSAEK; Endothelial cell density; Graft survival; Penetrating keratoplasty.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
References
- 
    - Lovaglio B, Trindade C, Coutinho G (2019) Descemetmembrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): an update on safety, efficacy and patientselection. ClinOphthalmol 13:1549–1557. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S178473 - DOI
 
- 
    - Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW Jr (2012) Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 119(3):536–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.09.019 - DOI - PubMed
 
- 
    - Deng SX, Lee WB, Hammersmith KM et al (2018) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the american academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 125(2):295–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08. - DOI - PubMed
 
- 
    - Dirisamer M, Ham L, Dapena I et al (2011) Efficacy of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: clinical outcome of 200 consecutive cases after a learning curve of 25 cases. Arch Ophthalmol 129:1435–1443 - DOI
 
- 
    - Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO et al (2011) Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 118:2368–2373 - DOI
 
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
- Full Text Sources
 
        