Top

BMC Ophthalmology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Research article

In vivo evaluation of DSAEK interface with scanning-laser confocal microscopy

Authors: Giulio Ferrari, Verena Reichegger, Luca Ludergnani, Elisabetta Delfini, Claudio Macaluso

Published in: BMC Ophthalmology | Issue 1/2012

Abstract

Background

Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSAEK) allows selective replacement of the endothelium. Post-operative haze and particles can affect the interface quality and, ultimately, visual outcome. In this study, we evaluated DSAEK interface with in vivo laser confocal microscopy (LCM) in order to: (i) correlate interface status with best corrected visual acuity, and (ii) with time from surgery; (iii) correlate interface particle number with best corrected visual acuity. Host-donor interface was imaged and graded using a published reflectivity scale. Particles at the interface were counted.

Methods

18 eyes of 16 patients (6 males and 10 females); mean age: 74 ± 8.3 years which underwent DSAEK were examined by means of in vivo laser confocal microscopy between 1 and 24 months after surgery. Host-donor interface was imaged and graded using a published reflectivity scale. Particles present at the interface were counted.

Results

Interface reflectivity was 2.17 ± 1.2 and significantly correlated with visual acuity (Spearman correlation coefficient −0.83; P < 0.001), and with time after surgery (Spearman correlation coefficient −0.87; P < 0.001). Visual acuity was 0.67 ± 0.27. The number of particles was 205 ± 117.8; no correlation was found between this number and visual acuity (Spearman correlation coefficient −0.41; P = 0.15).

Conclusion

DSAEK interface imaged with LCM is helpful in diagnosing poor host-donor interface quality in DSAEK surgery. A good quality interface is related to a better visual acuity. Moreover, the quality of the interface appears to improve as time passes from the surgery. Interface quality is related with visual acuity and improves with time from surgery. LCM should be considered as an added tool in post-DSAEK follow-up of patients. Finally, our study shows that the presence of particles does not influence visual outcome.

Available only for authorised users

Chen ES, Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES, Terry MA, Shamie N, Hoar KL, Friend DJ: Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: six-month results in a prospective study of 100 eyes. Cornea. 2008, 27: 514-520. 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181611c50.CrossRefPubMed

Koenig SB, Covert DJ: Early results of small-incision Descemet's stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2007, 114: 221-226. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.07.056.CrossRefPubMed

Koenig SB, Covert DJ, Dupps WJ, Meisler DM: Visual acuity, refractive error, and endothelial cell density six months after Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Cornea. 2007, 26: 670-674. 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3180544902.CrossRefPubMed

Bahar I, Kaiserman I, Levinger E, Sansanayudh W, Slomovic AR, Rootman DS: Retrospective contralateral study comparing descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2009, 28: 485-488. 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181901df4.CrossRefPubMed

Kaufman SC, Musch DC, Belin MW, Cohen EJ, Meisler DM, Reinhart WJ, Udell IJ, Van Meter WS: Confocal microscopy: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2004, 111: 396-406. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.12.002.CrossRefPubMed

Stave J, Zinser G, Grümmer G, Guthoff R: Modified Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph HRT. Initial results of in vivo presentation of corneal structures. Ophthalmologe. 2002, 99: 276-280. 10.1007/s003470100535.CrossRefPubMed

Kobayashi A, Yokogawa H, Sugiyama K: In vivo laser confocal microscopy of Bowman's layer of the cornea. Ophthalmology. 2006, 113: 2203-2208. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.058.CrossRefPubMed

Kobayashi A, Sugiyama K: In vivo laser confocal microscopy findings for Bowman's layer dystrophies (Thiel-Behnke and Reis-Bucklers corneal dystrophies). Ophthalmology. 2007, 114: 69-75. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.076.CrossRefPubMed

Macaluso C: Closed-chamber pulling-injection system for donor graft insertion in endothelial keratoplasty. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008, 34: 353-356. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.11.019.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Ferrari G, Tedesco S, Delfini E, Macaluso C: Laser Scanning In Vivo Confocal Microscopy in a Case of Terrien Marginal Degeneration. Cornea. 2010, 29 (4): 471-475.PubMed

11.

Kobayashi A, Mawatari Y, Yokogawa H, Sugiyama K: In vivo laser confocal microscopy after descemet stripping with automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008, 145: 977-985. 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.02.009.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Uchino Y, Shimmura S, Yamaguchi T, Kawakita T, Matsumoto Y, Negishi K, Tsubota K: Comparison of corneal thickness and haze in DSAEK and penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2011, 30 (3): 287-290. 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181eeafd6.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Meek KM, Leonard DW, Connon CJ, Dennis S, Khan S: Transparency, swelling and scarring in the corneal stroma. Eye (Lond). 2003, 17 (8): 927-936. 10.1038/sj.eye.6700574.CrossRef

14.

Shulman J, Kropinak M, Ritterband DC, Perry HD, Seedor JA, McCormick SA, Milman T: Failed descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty grafts: a clinicopathologic analysis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009, 148 (e2): 752-759.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Oster SF, Ebrahimi KB, Eberhart CG, Schein OD, Stark WJ, Jun AS: A clinicopathologic series of primary graft failure after Descemet's stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2009, 116: 609-614. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.08.036.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sbarbaro JA, Eagle RC, Thumma P, Raber IM: Histopathology of posterior lamellar endothelial keratoplasty graft failure. Cornea. 2008, 27: 900-904. 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318170aeb7.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Espana EM, Huang B: Confocal microscopy study of donor-recipient interface after Descemet's stripping with endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010, 94: 903-908. 10.1136/bjo.2009.165712.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Prasher P, Muftuoglu O, Bowman RW, McCulley JP, Petroll WM, Cavanagh HD, Mootha VV: Tandem scanning confocal microscopy of cornea after descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Eye Contact Lens. 2009, 35: 196-202. 10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181abb596.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kaufman SC, Kaufman HE: How has confocal microscopy helped us in refractive surgery?. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006, 17: 380-388. 10.1097/01.icu.0000233959.73262.99.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Perez-Gomez I, Cameron I, Efron N: Particles at the laser in situ keratomileusis flap interface. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004, 30: 2021-CrossRefPubMed

21.

Dawson DG, Edelhauser HF, Grossniklaus HE: Long-term histopathologic findings in human corneal wounds after refractive surgical procedures. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005, 139: 168-178. 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.08.078.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Ivarsen A, Thøgersen J, Keiding SR, Hjortdal JØ, Møller-Pedersen T: Plastic particles at the LASIK interface. Ophthalmology. 2004, 111: 18-23. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.05.021.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hu MY, McCulley JP, Cavanagh HD, Bowman RW, Verity SM, Mootha VV, Petroll WM: Comparison of the corneal response to laser in situ keratomileusis with flap creation using the FS15 and FS30 femtosecond lasers: clinical and confocal microscopy findings. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007, 33: 673-681. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.12.021.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kobayashi A, Yokogawa H, Sugiyama K: In vivo laser confocal microscopy after non-Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2009, 116: 1306-1313. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.053.CrossRefPubMed

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2415/12/32/prepub

Title: In vivo evaluation of DSAEK interface with scanning-laser confocal microscopy
Authors: Giulio Ferrari
Verena Reichegger
Luca Ludergnani
Elisabetta Delfini
Claudio Macaluso
Publication date: 01-12-2012
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Ophthalmology / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2415
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-12-32

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

In vivo evaluation of DSAEK interface with scanning-laser confocal microscopy

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Intraocular pressure in a cohort of healthy eastern European schoolchildren: variations in method and corneal thickness

Perimetric and retinal nerve fiber layer findings in patients with Parkinson’s disease

Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell function in relation to age: A pupillometric study in humans with special reference to the age-related optic properties of the lens

European ST80 community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus orbital cellulitis in a neonate

Association analysis of cigarette smoking with onset of primary open-angle glaucoma and glaucoma-related biometric parameters

Visual acuity improvements after implantation of toric intraocular lenses in cataract patients with astigmatism: a systematic review