July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
Feasibility and clinical outcome of secondary Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) after failed primary DMEK
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ingo Schmack
    Ophthalmology, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
  • Bishr Agha
    Ophthalmology, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
  • Mehdi Shajari
    Ophthalmology, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
  • Monika Lawatsch
    Ophthalmology, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
  • Thomas Kohnen
    Ophthalmology, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Ingo Schmack, None; Bishr Agha, None; Mehdi Shajari, None; Monika Lawatsch, None; Thomas Kohnen, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 1307. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ingo Schmack, Bishr Agha, Mehdi Shajari, Monika Lawatsch, Thomas Kohnen; Feasibility and clinical outcome of secondary Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) after failed primary DMEK. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):1307.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcome of secondary Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for graft failure after primary DMEK surgery.

Methods : Retrospective, comparative, interventional case series including 8 with secondary DMEK for corneal decompensation after previous DMEK failure (study group: female, 2; male, 6; mean age, 76.6±3.3 years) and 8 age-matched patients (control group: female, 4; male, 4; mean age, 75.6±2.4 years) with successful primary DMEK, only. Patients were evaluated before and at 1 week, 1 and 3 months after DMEK surgery. Indications for primary DMEK were FECD (n=7 vs. n=5) and bullous keratopathy (n=1 vs. n=3). Main outcome measures included preoperative and postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), central corneal thickness (CCT), endothelial cell density (ECD), and rebubbling rate.

Results : Preoperative CDVA (logMAR) was comparable between both groups. It improved after 3 months from 2.45 ± 0.81 to .94 ± .32 (study group, p <.05) and from 2.26 ± .79 to .55 ± .31 (control group, p <.05) (p> .05). Overall, CDVA was slightly better in the control group compared to the study group. However, intergroup comparison did not show statistical significance. During follow up, CCT and ECD decreased in both groups (p> .05). The rebubbling rate was 25% (2/8, study group) versus 37.5% (3/8, control group).

Conclusions : Repeat DMEK demonstrates to be a safe and effective approach for visual rehabilitation of patients with corneal decompensation after failed previous DMEK procedure. The clinical outcome of patients with secondary DMEK may be similar to primary DMEK.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

×
×

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.

×