Advertisement

Safety analysis and results of a borosilicate glass cartridge for no-touch graft loading and injection in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty

  • Annekatrin RickmannEmail author
  • Silke Wahl
  • Alisa Katsen-Globa
  • Peter Szurman
Original Paper
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcome after standardized DMEK using a glass injector.

Methods

A total of 254 patients undergoing DMEK surgery using a disposable DMEK borosilicate glass cartridge system were included in this retrospective study. The mean follow-up time was 13.2 months (SD ± 8.1, range 6–36 months). The used glass cartridge system has an aperture diameter of 1.6 mm and a posterior loading orifice of 4.29 mm. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used for estimation of the surface relief of the glass cartridge and comparison with a standard plastic injector cartridge.

Results

Mean endothelial cell count of donor grafts was 2465 cells/mm2 (SD ± 199). After 6 weeks of DMEK endothelial cell count decreased by − 28.6% to 1759 cells/mm2 (SD ± 435) (Wilcoxon p = 0.001) and remained stable at the final follow-up at 1735 cells/mm2 (SD ± 442) (Wilcoxon p = 0.89). SEM showed smoother surface of the glass cartridge in comparison with a plastic cartridge.

Conclusion

This study showed that this simple and effective DMEK cartridge seems to be a safe and viable device for minimized graft manipulation during DMEK surgery.

Keywords

DMEK Cartridge DMEK injector No-touch technique 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Peter Szurman has a patent for the described device (EP2533724 B1; WO2012065602 A3). All other authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Kruse FE, Laaser K, Cursiefen C, Heindl LM, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Riss S, Bachmann BO (2011) A stepwise approach to donor preparation and insertion increases safety and outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 30(5):580–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Giebel AW, Price FW (2011) Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 118(12):2368–2373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Dijk K, Ham L, Tse WH, Liarakos VS, Quilendrino R, Yeh RY et al (2013) Near complete visual recovery and refractive stability in modern corneal transplantation: descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cont Lens Anterior Eye 36(1):13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ham L, Dapena I, Van DerWees J, Melles GR (2010) Endothelial cell density after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1- to 3-year follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 149:1016–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dapena I, Ham L, Droutsas K, van Dijk K, Moutsouris K, Melles GR (2011) Learning curve in Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: first series of 135 consecutive cases. Ophthalmology 118(11):2147–2154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.03.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yoeruek E, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Schmidt B (2013) Novel surgical instruments facilitating Descemet membrane dissection. Cornea 32:523–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim EC, Bonfadini G, Todd L, Zhu A, Jun AS (2014) Simple, inexpensive, and effective injector for descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 33(6):649–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Busin M, Leon P, Scorcia V, Ponzin D (2015) Contact lens-assisted pull-through technique for delivery of tri-folded (endothelium in) DMEK grafts minimizes surgical time and cell loss. Ophthalmology 123:476–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Droutsas K, Lazaridis A, Kymionis GD, Chatzistefanou K, Moschos MM, Koutsandrea C, Sekundo W (2018) Comparison of endothelial cell loss and complications following DMEK with the use of three different graft injectors. Eye (Lond) 2018(32):19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szurman P, Januschowski K, Rickmann A, Damm LJ, Boden KT, Opitz N (2016) Novel liquid bubble dissection technique for DMEK lenticule preparation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-016-3377-z Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM, Price FW Jr (2009) Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology 116:2361–2368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parker J, Dirisamer M, Naveiras M, Ham L, van der Wees J, Melles GR (2011) Endothelial cell density after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1- to 4-year follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 151:1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parekh M, Ruzza A, Salvalaio G, Ferrari S, Camposampiero D, Busin M et al (2014) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissue preparation from donor corneas using a standardized submerged hydro-separation method. Am J Ophthalmol 158:277–285.e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heinzelmann S, Böhringer D, Eberwein P, Reinhard T, Maier P (2016) Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty from a single centre study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3248-z Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turnbull AMJ, Tsatsos M, Hossain PN, Anderson DF (2016) Determinants of visual quality after endothelial keratoplasty. Surv Ophthalmol 1:1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2015.12.006 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yokogawa H, Sanchez PJ, Mayko ZM, Straiko MD, Terry MA (2016) Corneal astigmatism stability in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for Fuchs corneal dystrophy cornea. Cornea.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ico.0000000000000882 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yoeruek E, Bartz-Schmidt K-U, Hofmann J (2016) Impact of the radius of the injector system on the cell viability in descemet membrane endothelial. Acta Ophthalmol 94:e1–e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eye Clinic SulzbachKnappschaft Hospital SaarSulzbachGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical EngineeringSulzbachGermany
  3. 3.University Eye Clinic Tuebingen, Centre for OphthalmologyTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations