Journal francais d'ophtalmologie · 2017
[Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): Analysis of a variation in Descemet's endothelial graft preparation].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Benoist D'azy C, Benoist D'azy C, Gabison E, Sapin V, Bosc C, Pereira B, Chiambaretta F
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) can replace just the corneal endothelium and respect the natural corneal anatomy. Currently, the technique of endothelial graft preparation remains manual and non-standardized.
PURPOSE: To report anatomic and functional results after DMEK, and compare two techniques of graft preparation.
METHODS: Single-center retrospective study, including 64 eyes of 64 patients undergoing DMEK, from September 2014 to February 2016 at Clermont-Ferrand University Medical Center. The "classic" preparation was used in 44 patients (group 1) and the "variant" preparation was used in 20 patients (group 2). An analysis of functional parameters (visual acuity), anatomy (pachymetry, corneal edema, endothelial cell count) and keratometry (sphere, cylinder, mean keratometry) was performed during the first postoperative year.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 10.0±2.5 months. The average preparation time was 12.3±8.1minutes, with 14.4±8.8 in group 1 versus 7.8±3.0 in group 2 (P<0.001). At six months, the best corrected distance visual acuity was significantly better in group 1 with an acuity of 0.28±0.28 LogMAR in group 1 and 0.37±0.30 LogMAR in group 2 (P<0.01). The best corrected near visual acuity was also better in group 1 at 6 months, with an acuity of 0.29±0.24 LogMAR (P<0.001) in group 1 and 0.37±0.28 LogMAR in group 2 (P=0.02). Improvement in visual acuity was continuous for the 2 groups. At 6 months, endothelial cell loss was greater in group 1 than in group 2, but the difference was not significant (P=0.44). Central corneal thickness was similar between the 2 groups. Finally, no change in keratometry parameters was found between preoperative data and 6 months in each group or between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: DMEK led to an improvement in all parameters as well as rapid visual rehabilitation. The new variation in preparation saved a considerable amount of time without decreasing graft survival or postoperative results.
PURPOSE: To report anatomic and functional results after DMEK, and compare two techniques of graft preparation.
METHODS: Single-center retrospective study, including 64 eyes of 64 patients undergoing DMEK, from September 2014 to February 2016 at Clermont-Ferrand University Medical Center. The "classic" preparation was used in 44 patients (group 1) and the "variant" preparation was used in 20 patients (group 2). An analysis of functional parameters (visual acuity), anatomy (pachymetry, corneal edema, endothelial cell count) and keratometry (sphere, cylinder, mean keratometry) was performed during the first postoperative year.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 10.0±2.5 months. The average preparation time was 12.3±8.1minutes, with 14.4±8.8 in group 1 versus 7.8±3.0 in group 2 (P<0.001). At six months, the best corrected distance visual acuity was significantly better in group 1 with an acuity of 0.28±0.28 LogMAR in group 1 and 0.37±0.30 LogMAR in group 2 (P<0.01). The best corrected near visual acuity was also better in group 1 at 6 months, with an acuity of 0.29±0.24 LogMAR (P<0.001) in group 1 and 0.37±0.28 LogMAR in group 2 (P=0.02). Improvement in visual acuity was continuous for the 2 groups. At 6 months, endothelial cell loss was greater in group 1 than in group 2, but the difference was not significant (P=0.44). Central corneal thickness was similar between the 2 groups. Finally, no change in keratometry parameters was found between preoperative data and 6 months in each group or between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: DMEK led to an improvement in all parameters as well as rapid visual rehabilitation. The new variation in preparation saved a considerable amount of time without decreasing graft survival or postoperative results.