May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Donor Risk Factor Analysis for Primary Graft Failure Following Descemets Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • A. Anshu
    Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore
  • J. S. Mehta
    Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore
    Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore
  • H. Cajucom-Uy
    Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore
    Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore
  • D. T. H. Tan
    Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore
    Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  A. Anshu, None; J.S. Mehta, None; H. Cajucom-Uy, None; D.T.H. Tan, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 1938. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      A. Anshu, J. S. Mehta, H. Cajucom-Uy, D. T. H. Tan; Donor Risk Factor Analysis for Primary Graft Failure Following Descemets Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):1938. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) has been shown to have superior refractive and visual results compared to conventional penetrating keratoplasty but higher rates of primary graft failure (PGF) have been reported. We report results of a donor risk factor analysis as to the cause of PGF in our series of DSAEK cases in Chinese eyes.

Methods: : PGF was diagnosed based on previously published criteria. Donor details examined were; age of donor, cause of donor death, death to harvesting time, donor storage time, distribution distance of tissue, preoperative endothelial cell count and method of donor insertion. Cases of PGF were compared with control cases (those that had undergone a successful procedure), significance value p< 0.05.

Results: : Five patients had PGF following DSAEK. One patient had 2 failures, hence six (12%) out of 50 DSAEK procedures. There was no statistical difference in the demographic information between the PGF and control cases. Four of the PGF cases were donor mates. All corneas were preserved in Optisol GS. There was no significant difference between the two groups (PGF v control) for; cadaver time, storage time, source of tissue, preoperative endothelial cell count, donor age and cause of death. There was a significantly less PGF following glide insertion than 'taco' (p= 0.0029, OR 10).

Conclusions: : Surgical trauma is a factor for PGF following DSAEK in our series, and not donor retrieval, transportation or eye banking procedures. Efforts must be made to reduce endothelial cell loss during donor insertion.

Keywords: cornea: endothelium • cornea: clinical science • transplantation 
×
×

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.

×