Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-Term Clear Graft Survival and Chronic Endothelial Cell Loss Following Posterior Lamellar Keratoplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Current Treatment Options for Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy

  • 695 Accesses

Abstract

Diseases of the corneal endothelium (Fuchs endothelial dystrophy, bullous keratopathy, and endothelial failure following penetrating keratoplasty) count for the most frequent indications for corneal transplantation. Instead of replacing all five layers of the cornea (epithelium, Bowman layer, stroma, Descemet membrane, endothelium) by penetrating keratoplasty (PK), which has first been performed by Eduard Zirm [1–3] in 1905, nowadays techniques for the selective replacement of the diseased corneal endothelium are preferred. This has first been suggested by Tillet in 1956 [4] to avoid characteristical complications following PK (e.g. high irregular astigmatism and wound healing problems). Although the technical principle of this kind of posterior lamellar keratoplasty or endothelial keratoplasty (EK) could be realised, the visual results were not satisfying for the patients. One important technical step in improving posterior lamellar keratoplasty was the introduction of descemetorhexis by Melles et al. [5], where the stroma of the recipients cornea is not manipulated and only the Descemet membrane including the diseased endothelial cells is removed completely [6]. By avoiding manipulations of the recipient’s posterior stroma the clinical results could be improved as the lamellar graft could be attached to a smooth surface of the posterior stroma. In case of Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) the lamellar graft is manually prepared and consists of posterior stroma, Descemet membrane, and endothelium of the donor. It is transferred into the anterior chamber via a corneoscleral or clear cornea incision using special surgical instruments, unfolded and sutureless attached to the posterior stroma of the recipient’s cornea by an air bubble. Regarding DSEK one problem is the manual preparation process of the lamellar graft leading graft preparation failures in some cases [7]. To overcome these problems of complete manual graft preparation the separation of the stromal lamellae can be performed using a microkeratome, by which a 400–500 μm thick layer of the anterior part of the donor cornea can be cut leaving a 80–150 μm thick lamella consisting of posterior stroma, Descemet membrane, and endothelium (Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty, DSAEK). The characteristic advantages of DSEK/DSAEK compared to PK are a suture-free graft adaptation and a faster improvement of visual acuity without a change of the refractive status. On the other hand, due to more intensive graft manipulations during graft preparation, implantation, and adaptation, the early endothelial cell loss following DSEK/DSAEK seems to be higher than that after PK. Furthermore, patients following DSEK/DSAEK often do not reach the maximum possible visual acuity which may be explained by optical phenomena caused by graft-host-interface reactions [8]. To reach the respective advantages of DSEK/DSAEK but to avoid graft-host-interface problems, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) has been developed where the corneal graft consists only of Descemet membrane and endothelial cells without corneal stroma [9]. For DMEK graft preparation Descemet membrane including the endothelium is manually peeled off the donor’s posterior stroma using fine forceps. Following complete peeling off Descemet membrane forms a roll with the endothelial cells on the exterior. This graft roll can then be implanted into the anterior chamber through a small clear cornea incision and attached to the posterior recipient’s stroma by using an air bubble after the graft has been carefully unfolded. As no stromal tissue of the donor is grafted the primary anatomical situation is restored by DMEK leading to the maximum reachable visual acuity. However, one disadvantage of DMEK is that macroscopically invisible collagen fibres of the donor stroma can insert into Descemet membrane causing tears in the thin graft leading to graft preparation failures [10]. Furthermore, the unfolding of the graft may also be much more difficult than in DSAEK potentially leading to more intraoperative endothelial cell damage and more primary graft failures [3, 11].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Zirm EK. Eine erfolgreiche totale Keratoplastik (A successful total keratoplasty). 1906. Refract Corneal Surg. 1989;5(4):258–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cursiefen C, Seitz B, Kruse F. Hornhauttransplantation: Glänzende Bilanz und viele Perspektiven. Dtsch Arztebl. 2005;102(45):A–3078/B–2603/C–2445.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Maier P, Reinhard T, Cursiefen C. Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty – rapid recovery of visual acuity. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110(21):365–71.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Tillet C. Posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1956;41:530–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Melles GRJ, Wijdh RHJ, Nieuwendaal CP. A technique to excise the descemet membrane from a recipient cornea (descemetorhexis). Cornea. 2004;23(3):286–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Heindl LM, Hofmann-Rummelt C, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Kruse FE, Cursiefen C. Histologic analysis of descemet stripping in posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(4):461–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Price MO, Price Jr FW. Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty: comparative outcomes with microkeratome-dissected and manually dissected donor tissue. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(11):1936–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heinzelmann S, Böhringer D, Maier PC, Reinhard T. Correlation between visual acuity and interface reflectivity measured by pentacam following DSAEK. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013;92(1):e1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Melles GRJ, Ong TS, Ververs B, van der Wees J. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea. 2006;25(8):987–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Bachmann BO, Laaser K, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE. Characterization of the cleavage plane in DESCemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(10):1950–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Heinzelmann S, Maier P, Reinhard T. Perspectives of posterior lamellar keratoplasty. In search of the perfect lamella. Ophthalmologe. 2011;108(9):825–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Monnereau C, Quilendrino R, Dapena I, Liarakos VS, Alfonso JF, Arnalich-Montiel F, et al. Multicenter study of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: first case series of 18 surgeons. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132(10):1192–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cornea Donor Study Investigator Group, Gal RL, Dontchev M, Beck RW, Mannis MJ, Holland EJ, et al. The effect of donor age on corneal transplantation outcome results of the cornea donor study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(4):620–6.e6.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sugar A, Tanner JP, Dontchev M, Tennant B, Schultze RL, Dunn SP, et al. Recipient risk factors for graft failure in the cornea donor study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(6):1023–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ing JJ, Ing HH, Nelson LR, Hodge DO, Bourne WM. Ten-year postoperative results of penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(10):1855–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pineros O, Cohen EJ, Rapuano CJ, Laibson PR. Long-term results after penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(1):15–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thompson RW, Price MO, Bowers PJ, Price FW. Long-term graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(7):1396–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Guerin M, O’ Connell E, Walsh C, Fulcher T. Visual outcomes and graft survival following corneal transplants: the need for an Irish National Corneal Transplant Registry. Ir J Med Sci. 2008;177(2):107–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Claesson M, Armitage WJ, Fagerholm P, Stenevi U. Visual outcome in corneal grafts: a preliminary analysis of the Swedish Corneal Transplant Register. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(2):174–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Böhringer D, Böhringer S, Poxleitner K, Birnbaum F, Schwartzkopff J, Maier P, et al. Long-term graft survival in penetrating keratoplasty: the biexponential model of chronic endothelial cell loss revisited. Cornea. 2010;29(10):1113–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenrod EB, Jones MNA, Kaye S, Larkin DFP, National Health Service Blood and Transplant Ocular Tissue Advisory Group and Contributing Ophthalmologists (Ocular Tissue Advisory Group Audit Study 16). Center and surgeon effect on outcomes of endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in the United Kingdom. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(5):957–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Coster DJ, Lowe MT, Keane MC, Williams KA, Australian Corneal Graft Registry Contributors. A comparison of lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty outcomes: a registry study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(5):979–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Akanda ZZ, Naeem A, Russell E, Belrose J, Si FF, Hodge WG. Graft rejection rate and graft failure rate of penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) vs lamellar procedures: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0119934.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ratanasit A, Gorovoy MS. Long-term results of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2011;30(12):1414–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Price MO, Fairchild KM, Price DA, Price FW. Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty five-year graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(4):725–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Reinhard T, Böhringer D, Sundmacher R. Accelerated chronic endothelial cell loss after penetrating keratoplasty in glaucoma eyes. J Glaucoma. 2001;10(6):446–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Reinhard T, Kallmann C, Cepin A, Godehardt E, Sundmacher R. The influence of glaucoma history on graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1997;235(9):553–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Giebel AW, Price FW. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(12):2368–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reid RA, Craig EA, Suleman H. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): first UK prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival and endothelial cell count. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99(2):166–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rodríguez-Calvo-de-Mora M, Quilendrino R, Ham L, Liarakos VS, van Dijk K, Baydoun L, et al. Clinical outcome of 500 consecutive cases undergoing Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(3):464–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heinzelmann S, Böhringer D, Eberwein P, Reinhard T, Maier P. Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty from a single centre study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254(3):515–22. doi: 10.1007/s00417-015-3248-z. Epub 2016 Jan 7.

  32. Engelmann K, Bednarz J, Böhnke M. Endothelial cell transplantation and growth behavior of the human corneal endothelium. Ophthalmologe. 1999;96(9):555–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Senoo T, Joyce NC. Cell cycle kinetics in corneal endothelium from old and young donors. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(3):660–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bourne WM, Nelson LR, Hodge DO. Central corneal endothelial cell changes over a ten-year period. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38(3):779–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Armitage WJ, Dick AD, Bourne WM. Predicting endothelial cell loss and long-term corneal graft survival. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(8):3326–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bourne WM, Nelson LR, Hodge DO. Continued endothelial cell loss ten years after lens implantation. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(6):1014–22; discussion 1022–1023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bourne WM, Nelson LR, Buller CR, Huang PT, Geroski DH, Edelhauser HF. Long-term observation of morphologic and functional features of cat corneal endothelium after wounding. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35(3):891–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Böhringer D, Reinhard T, Spelsberg H, Sundmacher R. Influencing factors on chronic endothelial cell loss characterised in a homogeneous group of patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(1):35–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Patel SV, Hodge DO, Bourne WM. Corneal endothelium and postoperative outcomes 15 years after penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139(2):311–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Patel SV, Diehl NN, Hodge DO, Bourne WM. Donor risk factors for graft failure in a 20-year study of penetrating keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(4):418–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Reinhard T, Böhringer D, Hüschen D, Sundmacher R. Chronic endothelial cell loss of the graft after penetrating keratoplasty: influence of endothelial cell migration from graft to host. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2002;219(6):410–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lass JH, Sugar A, Benetz BA, Beck RW, Dontchev M, Gal RL, et al. Endothelial cell density to predict endothelial graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(1):63–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bourne WM, Hodge DO, Nelson LR. Corneal endothelium five years after transplantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1994;118(2):185–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cornea Donor Study Investigator Group, Lass JH, Gal RL, Dontchev M, Beck RW, Kollman C, et al. Donor age and corneal endothelial cell loss 5 years after successful corneal transplantation. Specular microscopy ancillary study results. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(4):627–32.e8.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Lee WB, Jacobs DS, Musch DC, Kaufman SC, Reinhart WJ, Shtein RM. Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(9):1818–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Price MO, Gorovoy M, Benetz BA, Price Jr FW, Menegay HJ, Debanne SM, et al. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty outcomes compared with penetrating keratoplasty from the Cornea Donor Study. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(3):438–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(6):1082–90.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Koenig SB, Covert DJ, Dupps Jr WJ, Meisler DM. Visual acuity, refractive error, and endothelial cell density six months after Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Cornea. 2007;26(6):670–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Arenas E, Esquenazi S, Anwar M, Terry M. Lamellar corneal transplantation. Surv Ophthalmol. 2012;57(6):510–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Horn FK, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE. Donor tissue culture conditions and outcome after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(6):1007–18.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Price MO, Bidros M, Gorovoy M, Price Jr FW, Benetz BA, Menegay HJ, et al. Effect of incision width on graft survival and endothelial cell loss after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2010;29(5):523–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Terry MA, Li J, Goshe J, Davis-Boozer D. Endothelial keratoplasty: the relationship between donor tissue size and donor endothelial survival. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(10):1944–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Price MO, Price Jr FW. Endothelial cell loss after descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty influencing factors and 2-year trend. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(5):857–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Terry MA. Endothelial keratoplasty: a comparison of complication rates and endothelial survival between precut tissue and surgeon-cut tissue by a single DSAEK surgeon. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2009;107:184–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES, Hoar KL, Phillips PM, Friend DJ. Endothelial keratoplasty: the influence of preoperative donor endothelial cell densities on dislocation, primary graft failure, and 1-year cell counts. Cornea. 2008;27(10):1131–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Price MO, Baig KM, Brubaker JW, Price Jr FW. Randomized, prospective comparison of precut vs surgeon-dissected grafts for descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146(1):36–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Busin M, Bhatt PR, Scorcia V. A modified technique for descemet membrane stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty to minimize endothelial cell loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(8):1133–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Khor W-B, Mehta JS, Tan DT-H. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with a graft insertion device: surgical technique and early clinical results. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(2):223–32.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ang M, Mehta JS, Anshu A, Wong HK, Htoon HM, Tan D. Endothelial cell counts after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in Asian eyes. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:537–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Price MO, Gorovoy M, Price FW, Benetz BA, Menegay HJ, Lass JH. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: three-year graft and endothelial cell survival compared with penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(2):246–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Dooren BTHV, Saelens IEY, Bleyen I, Mulder PGH, Bartels MC, Rij GV. Endothelial cell decay after descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and top hat penetrating keratoplasty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(12):9226–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Gorovoy IR, Gorovoy MS. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty postoperative year 1 endothelial cell counts. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159(3):597–600.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Cursiefen C, Kruse FE. DMEK: Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmologe. 2010;107(4):370–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Baydoun L, Tong CM, Tse WW, Chi H, Parker J, Ham L, et al. Endothelial cell density after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1 to 5-year follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(4):762–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Quilendrino R, Höhn H, Tse WHW, Chi H, Dapena I, Ham L, et al. Do we overestimate the endothelial cell “loss” after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty? Curr Eye Res. 2013;38(2):260–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Hori J, Joyce NC, Streilein JW. Immune privilege and immunogenicity reside among different layers of the mouse cornea. 2000. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2007;15(3):225–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Hori J, Joyce NC, Streilein JW. Immune privilege and immunogenicity reside among different layers of the mouse cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(10):3032–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hori J, Streilein JW. Role of recipient epithelium in promoting survival of orthotopic corneal allografts in mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(3):720–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Holán V. Corneal stromal cells selectively inhibit the production of certain anti-inflammatory cytokines. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2006;2(1):101–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Nanavaty MA, Wang X, Shortt AJ. Endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2:CD008420.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Nanavaty MA, Shortt AJ. Endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7:CD008420.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Bahar I, Kaiserman I, McAllum P, Slomovic A, Rootman D. Comparison of posterior lamellar keratoplasty techniques to penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1525–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Foster JB, Vasan R, Walter KA. Three-millimeter incision descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty using sodium hyaluronate (healon): a survey of 105 eyes. Cornea. 2011;30(2):150–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 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(5):514–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Shih CY, Ritterband DC, Rubino S, Palmiero P-M, Jangi A, Liebmann J, et al. Visually significant and nonsignificant complications arising from Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(6):837–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Suh LH, Yoo SH, Deobhakta A, Donaldson KE, Alfonso EC, Culbertson WW, et al. Complications of Descemet’s stripping with automated endothelial keratoplasty: survey of 118 eyes at One Institute. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(9):1517–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Heindl LM, Kruse FE, Cursiefen C. Complications after posterior lamellar keratoplasty (DSAEK): prevention, detection and treatment. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2010;227(6):478–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM, Price Jr FW. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2361–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Gorovoy MS. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2006;25(8):886–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Bahar I, Kaiserman I, Sansanayudh W, Levinger E, Rootman DS. Busin guide vs forceps for the insertion of the donor lenticule in descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147(2):220–6.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Mearza AA, Qureshi MA, Rostron CK. Experience and 12-month results of descemet-stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) with a small-incision technique. Cornea. 2007;26(3):279–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Sarnicola V, Toro P. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty by using suture for donor insertion. Cornea. 2008;27(7):825–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Terry MA, Chen ES, Shamie N, Hoar KL, Friend DJ. Endothelial cell loss after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in a large prospective series. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(3):488–96.e3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Wylegała E, Tarnawska D. Management of pseudophakic bullous keratopathy by combined Descemet-stripping endothelial keratoplasty and intraocular lens exchange. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(10):1708–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Yoo SH, Kymionis GD, Deobhakta AA, Ide T, Manns F, Culbertson WW, et al. One-year results and anterior segment optical coherence tomography findings of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty combined with phacoemulsification. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(8):1052–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Allan BDS, Terry MA, Price Jr FW, Price MO, Griffin NB, Claesson M. Corneal transplant rejection rate and severity after endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2007;26(9):1039–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Diamantis A, Cursiefen C, Küchle M, Naumann GO. Immunological graft reactions after penetrating keratoplasty – a prospective randomized trial comparing corneal excimer laser and motor trephination. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2001;218(11):710–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hjortdal J, Pedersen IB, Bak-Nielsen S, Ivarsen A. Graft rejection and graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty or posterior lamellar keratoplasty for fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cornea. 2012;32(5):e60–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Anshu A, Price MO, Price Jr FW. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(3):536–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eye Center, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Philip Maier & Thomas Reinhard

Authors
  1. Philip Maier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Reinhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Claus Cursiefen

  2. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Albert S. Jun

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Maier, P., Reinhard, T. (2017). Long-Term Clear Graft Survival and Chronic Endothelial Cell Loss Following Posterior Lamellar Keratoplasty. In: Cursiefen, C., Jun, A. (eds) Current Treatment Options for Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43021-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43021-8_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43019-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43021-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation