Double-Scroll Formation by Fluid Column Manipulation in Preloaded DMEK Grafts Prepared From Younger and Older Donor Tissue
- PMID: 36255778
- DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003135
Double-Scroll Formation by Fluid Column Manipulation in Preloaded DMEK Grafts Prepared From Younger and Older Donor Tissue
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether manipulation of preloaded single-scroll Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) grafts within the fluid column of an injector can safely and reliably result in formation of double-scroll DMEK grafts and whether there are differential effects on younger versus older donor tissue.
Methods: Pairs of DMEK grafts prepared from older (65-80 years) and younger (48-64 years) donors were preloaded into a Straiko modified Jones tube. One member of the pair was manipulated within the fluid column to form a double-scroll graft, and the other remained unmanipulated. Outcomes measured include success rate for double-scroll formation, endothelial cell loss (ECL), and relative scroll width.
Results: Older donor grafts formed double scrolls with a 100% success rate. ECL of older donor manipulated grafts was statistically higher than that of unmanipulated mate grafts (17.4% ± 3.5% vs. 13.0% ± 4.2%, P = 0.03), but was still within the acceptable range for transplant. Younger donor grafts were successfully manipulated into double scrolls with a 67% success rate, and there was no difference in the ECL of manipulated and unmanipulated grafts (15.5% ± 4.4% vs. 13.0% ± 4.5%, P = 0.24). For all grafts and conformations, there was a significant relationship between relative scroll width and ECL ( P < 0.01).
Conclusions: Fluid column manipulation can be used reliably to form double-scroll DMEK grafts. For younger donor grafts, manipulation yields a double scroll without increasing ECL. For older donor grafts, manipulation results in a minimal, acceptable increase in ECL. Surgeons should weigh the advantage of an easily opened graft against the risk of increased ECL when considering this technique.
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
-
- Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW Jr. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:536–540.
-
- Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW. Endothelial keratoplasty: fellow eyes comparison of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2011;30:1382–1386.
-
- Maier P, Reinhard T, Cursiefen C. Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty—rapid recovery of visual acuity. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110:365–371.
-
- Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:1082–1090.
-
- Zafar S, Parker JS, de Kort C, et al. Perceived difficulties and barriers to uptake of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty among surgeons. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:1055–1061.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources