Complications of Pre-Descemet’s Endothelial Keratoplasty (PDEK)

  • Amar Agarwal
  • Dhivya Ashok Kumar


Normal endothelial cell function is imperative for maintaining the corneal transparency. Various endothelial keratoplasty techniques have evolved over the last 2 decades and have shown to aid in the provision of potential vision by endothelial transplantation [1–4]. Although major complications of penetrating keratoplasties like suture inflammation, irregular astigmatism, and keratitis are prevented after endothelial keratoplasties, they are not free of complications [5]. In this chapter, we have discussed the complications of Pre-Descemet’s endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK) and the methods of management of the same. Pre-Descemet’s endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK), a recent modification of endothelial keratoplasty, involves the transplantation of the pre-Descemet’s layer (Dua’s layer) along with the Descemet’s membrane (DM) with endothelium [6, 7]. PDEK has many potential advantages over other EKs such as Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) or Descemet’s stripping and endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK); however, in the learning curve, complications are inevitable. These complications are generally manageable, and the risk tends to decline as a surgeon gains experience in the new surgical technique.


Anterior Chamber Corneal Edema Bullous Keratopathy Bubble Burst Endothelial Keratoplasty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Dirisamer M, van Dijk K, Dapena I, et al. Prevention and management of graft detachment in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(3):280–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, et al. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(12):2368–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shih CY, Ritterband DC, Rubino S, Palmiero PM, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nanavaty MA, Wang X, Shortt AJ. Endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(2):CD008420. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008420.pub3.
  6. 6.
    Agarwal A, Dua HS, Narang P, Kumar DA, Agarwal A, Jacob S, Agarwal A, Gupta A. Pre-Descemet’s endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK). Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(9):1181–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dua HS, Faraj LA, Said DG, Gray T, Lowe J. Human corneal anatomy redefined: a novel pre-Descemet’s layer (Dua’s layer). Ophthalmology. 2013;120(9):1778–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kumar DA, Dua HS, Agarwal A, Jacob S. Postoperative spectral-domain optical coherence tomography evaluation of pre-Descemet endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK) grafts. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(7):1535–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yeh RY, Quilendrino R, Musa FU, Liarakos VS, Dapena I, Melles GR. Predictive value of optical coherence tomography in graft attachment after Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(2):240–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dr. Agarwal’s Eye HospitalChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations