June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Impact of bubbling pressure on endothelial cell quality in Pre-Descemet’s endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK) preparation.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Joshua H Hou
    Ophthalmology & Visual Neurosciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
    Minnesota Lions Eye Bank, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States
  • Peter Bedard
    Ophthalmology & Visual Neurosciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
    Minnesota Lions Eye Bank, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Joshua Hou, None; Peter Bedard, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Research Seed Grant from the Minnesota Lions Vision Foundation
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 5696. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Joshua H Hou, Peter Bedard; Impact of bubbling pressure on endothelial cell quality in Pre-Descemet’s endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK) preparation.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):5696.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : PDEK offers numerous advantages over Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Unlike DMEK, PDEK grafts can be obtained from very young donor tissue. Furthermore, PDEK grafts are thin enough to be optically similar to DMEK, but thick enough to be easier to manipulate intraoperatively. Adoption of PDEK, however, has been limited due concerns over post-processing graft quality. Factors that affect graft quality are poorly understood. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of inflation pressure on endothelial cell quality after PDEK preparation.

Methods : Donor corneas with adequate endothelium for transplantation were obtained for PDEK processing. Samples were evaluated for endothelial cell quality using specular microscopy and trypan blue vital dye staining. Samples were then randomized for bubble inflation with either air or Optisol. PDEK preparation was performed under continuous pressure monitoring using an in-line pressure gauge (DPI 705 series). Bubble type (1 vs 2), peak inflation pressure (PIP) during bubble formation, and mean expansion pressure (MEP) during bubble enlargement, were obtained. Post-processing endothelial cell quality was then evaluated with trypan blue vital dye staining and graded as acceptable (<25% global cell loss) or unacceptable.

Results : In total, 25 corneas were processed. A type 1 or type 2 bubble was obtained in 56.0% and 32.0% of cases, respectively. No bubble was obtained in 12.0% of cases. Mean PIP was statistically higher for type 1 (1030.5mmHg) vs type 2 (593.1mmHg) bubbles (p=0.012). Mean MEP trended higher for type 1 (667.3mmHg) vs type 2 (449.6mmHg) bubbles (p=0.056). There was no statistical difference in mean PIP or MEP when using air (706.0mmHg, 510.7mmHg) compared to Optisol (852.9mmHg, 653.0mmHg). 29% of type 1 bubbles had acceptable endothelial cell quality post processing compared to 88% for type 2 bubbles (p=0.012). The percentage of PDEK preparations with acceptable endothelium post-processing declined significantly as a function of increasing PIP and MEP (Fig 1).

Conclusions : PDEK processing can induced significant endothelial cell damage during bubbling. Type 1 bubbles are associated with higher inflation pressures and more endothelial cell loss compared to type 2 bubbles. Both PIP and MEP correlate with endothelial cell loss and should be minimized in future PDEK preparation techniques.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.

 

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×