Clinical Outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in Eyes With a Glaucoma Drainage Device.
Rénuka S Birbal, C Maya Tong, Isabel Dapena, John S Parker, Jack S Parker, Silke Oellerich, Gerrit R J Melles
Summary
With specific surgical modifications, DMEK provided acceptable clinical outcomes when taking the complexity of these eyes into account.
Abstract
PURPOSE
To evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in eyes with a glaucoma drainage device (GDD).
DESIGN
Retrospective, interventional case series.
METHODS
Clinical outcomes of 23 DMEK procedures for bullous keratopathy (52%), failed previous transplant (39%), or Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (9%) in 20 eyes (19 patients) with a GDD were retrospectively analyzed at 2 tertiary referral centers. Main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), postoperative complications, and graft survival.
RESULTS
Mean length of postoperative follow-up after DMEK was 19 (±17) months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed an 89% cumulative graft success rate at 1 year postoperatively. At 1 year postoperatively (n = 15 eyes), BCVA improved by ≥2 Snellen lines in 11 eyes (73%) and remained stable in 4 eyes (27%). Donor ECD decreased by 37% (n = 14), 60% (n = 11), and 71% (n = 11) at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, respectively. Postoperative complications up to 2 years postoperatively comprised pupillary block in 1 eye (successfully reversed by partial air removal), visually significant graft detachment requiring rebubbling in 5 eyes (22%), allograft rejection successfully reversed with topical steroids in 2 eyes (9%), secondary graft failure in 2 eyes (9%), and cataract in 1 of 3 phakic eyes (33%). Re-keratoplasty was required in 2 eyes (9%).
CONCLUSIONS
With specific surgical modifications, DMEK provided acceptable clinical outcomes when taking the complexity of these eyes into account. However, presence of a GDD may reduce graft survival times and may pose a risk for more frequent regrafting.
More by Rénuka S Birbal
View full profile →In the Knowledge Library
Discussion
Comments and discussion will appear here in a future update.