Corneal Imaging and Densitometry Measurements in Patients with Fuchs' Dystrophy Undergoing Penetrating Keratoplasty and Descemet's Striping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Original research study

Article Sidebar

PDF


Published: Dec 31, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24292/01.OT.212124
Keywords:
cornea, Fuchs, stroma, densitometry, endothelial, dystrophy

Main Article Content

Khaled Alzahrani
1. Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester. 2. Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester. 3. Optometry Department, King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2325-7688
Jawaher Alshehri
Department of Optometry, Al Baha University, Saudi Arabia
Arun Brahma
Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester
Fiona Carley
Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester
Chantal M. Hillarby
1. Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester. 2. Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester

Abstract

Aims: In the present study, we used the densitometry software from the Oculus Pentacam to compare postoperative corneal clarity between penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in patients with Fuchs’ dystrophy.


Methods: A retrospective comparative study was carried out at Manchester Royal Eye Hospital. In 28 patients with Fuchs’ dystrophy, corneal densitometry measurements were performed 12–18 months after corneal transplantation. The correlations of the densitometry measurements with the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central corneal thickness (CCT) were analysed and compared between eyes that underwent PK and those that underwent DSAEK.


Results: Corneal densitometry measurements in the 33 eyes showed no significant differences between the PK and DSAEK post-surgery groups. There was no significant correlation between CCT and corneal densitometry measurements in either group (P >0.05 in both cases). After DSAEK, corneal densitometry measurements were significantly correlated with BCVA in the central (P = 0.01), posterior (P = 0.007), and full-depth (P = 0.008) 0–2 mm zones of the cornea but not in PK group. The postoperative CCT was significantly different between the two groups (P <0.01).


Conclusion: The 2 types of corneal transplantation resulted in different outcomes in terms of corneal densitometry measurements. Improved visual acuity after DSAEK was found to positively correlate with improvements in corneal clarity. Oculus Pentacam provides an objective evaluation tool to monitor corneal status after surgery.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Alzahrani K, Alshehri J, Brahma A, Carley F, Hillarby CM. Corneal Imaging and Densitometry Measurements in Patients with Fuchs’ Dystrophy Undergoing Penetrating Keratoplasty and Descemet’s Striping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty. Ophthatherapy [Internet]. 2024Dec.31 [cited 2025Feb.22];11(4). Available from: https://journalsmededu.pl/index.php/ophthatherapy/article/view/3135
Issue
Vol 11 No 4 (2024)
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright: © Medical Education sp. z o.o. License allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.

Address reprint requests to: Medical Education, Marcin Kuźma (marcin.kuzma@mededu.pl)

References

1. Kang PC, Klintworth GK, Kim T et al. Trends in the indications for penetrating keratoplasty, 1980-2001. Cornea. 2005; 24(7): 801-3. http://doi.org/10.1097/01.ico.0000157407.43699.22.
2. Weisenthal R, Streeten B. Posterior membrane dystrophies. Cornea. 1997; 2: 1063-90.
3. Dapena I, Ham L, Melles GR. Endothelial keratoplasty: DSEK/DSAEK or DMEK – the thinner the better? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009; 20(4): 299-307.
4. Bruinsma M, Tong C, Melles G. What does the future hold for the treatment of Fuchs endothelial dystrophy; will ‘keratoplasty’still be a valid procedure & quest. Eye. 2013; 27(10): 1115-22.
5. Eghrari AO, Gottsch JD. Fuchs’ corneal dystrophy. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2010; 5(2): 147-59.
6. Fuchs E. Dystrophia epithelialis corneae. Albrecht von Graefes Archiv für Ophthalmologie. 1910; 76(3): 478-508.
7. Kim JK, Kim SS, Lee HK et al. Laser in situ keratomileusis versus laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy for the correction of high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30(7): 1405-11. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.12.053.
8. Tan DT, Dart JK, Holland EJ et al. Corneal transplantation. Lancet. 2012; 379(9827): 1749-61. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60437-1.
9. Gaum L, Reynolds I, Jones MN et al. Tissue and corneal donation and transplantation in the UK. Br J Anaesth. 2012; 108(Suppl 1): i43-7. http://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer398.
11. Keenan TD, Carley F, Yeates D et al.; NHSBT Ocular Tissue Advisory Group and contributing ophthalmologists (OTAG Audit Study 8). Trends in corneal graft surgery in the UK. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011; 95(4): 468-72. http://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2010.182329.
12. Lim L, Pesudovs K, Coster DJ. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: visual outcome and success. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107(6): 1125-31.
13. Gorovoy M, Price F. New technique transforms corneal transplantation. Cataract Refract Surg Today. 2005; 11: 55-8.
14. Pramanik S, Goins, KM, Sutphin JE. Corneal Endothelial Transplantation: Descemet’s Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSEK). Eyerounds.org. February 23, 2006.
15. Gorovoy MS. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2006; 25(8): 886-9.
16. Price MO, Fairchild KM, Price DA et al. Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty five-year graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011; 118(4): 725-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.08.012.
17. Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES et al. Endothelial keratoplasty for Fuchs’ dystrophy with cataract: complications and clinical results with the new triple procedure. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116(4): 631-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.11.004.
18. Nanavaty MA, Wang X, Shortt AJ. Endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 2014(2): CD008420.
19. Nanavaty MA, Shortt AJ. Endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (7): CD008420.
20. Lopes B, Ramos I, Ambrósio Jr R. Corneal densitometry in keratoconus. Cornea. 2014; 33(12): 1282-6.
21. Alnawaiseh M, Rosentreter A, Eveslage M et al. Changes in Corneal Transparency After Cross-linking for Progressive Keratoconus: Longterm Follow-up. J Refract Surg. 2015; 31(9): 614-8. http://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20150820-07.
22. Maurice DM. The structure and transparency of the cornea. The Journal of Physiology. 1957; 136(2): 263-86.
23. bbNí Dhubhghaill S, Rozema JJ, Jongenelen S et al. Normative values for corneal densitometry analysis by Scheimpflug optical assessment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55(1): 162-8. http://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-13236.
24. Alzahrani K, Carley F, Brahma A et al. Corneal clarity measurements in healthy volunteers across different age groups: Observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(46): e8563. http://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008563.
25. Bourne WM, Hodge DO, Nelson LR. Corneal endothelium five years after transplantation. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1994; 118(2): 185-96.
26. Ing JJ, Ing HH, Nelson LR et al. Ten-year postoperative results of penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1998; 105(10): 1855-65. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(98)91030-2.
27. Koenig SB, Covert DJ, Dupps WJ Jr et al. Visual acuity, refractive error, and endothelial cell density six months after Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Cornea. 2007; 26(6): 670-4. http://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3180544902.
28. Koh S, Maeda N, Nakagawa T et al. Quality of vision in eyes after selective lamellar keratoplasty. Cornea. 2012; 31(Suppl 1): S45-9. http://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e318269c9cd.
29. Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J. Recipient corneal thickness and visual outcome after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98(1): 30-4.
30. Price MO, Price FW. Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty: comparative outcomes with microkeratome-dissected and manually dissected donor tissue. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113(11): 1936-42.
31. Li JY, Terry MA, Goshe J et al. Three-year visual acuity outcomes after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012; 119(6): 1126-9. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.12.037.
32. Neff KD, Biber JM, Holland EJ. Comparison of central corneal graft thickness to visual acuity outcomes in endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2011; 30(4): 388-91.
33. Busin M, Madi S, Santorum P et al. Ultrathin descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the microkeratome double-pass technique: two-year outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120(6): 1186-94. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.030.
34. Mencucci R, Favuzza E, Tartaro R et al. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in Fuchs’ corneal endothelial dystrophy: anterior segment optical coherence tomography and in vivo confocal microscopy analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015; 15: 99. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-015-0096-x.
35. Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM et al. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116(12): 2361-8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.07.010.
36. Anshu A, Planchard B, Price MO et al. A cause of reticular interface haze and its management after descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2012; 31(12): 1365-8. http://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823d027d.
37. Hindman HB, Huxlin KR, Pantanelli SM et al. Post-DSAEK optical changes: a comprehensive prospective analysis on the role of ocular wavefront aberrations, haze, and corneal thickness. Cornea. 2013; 32(12): 1567-77. http://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182a9b182.
38. Unterlauft JD, Elsaesser K, Grehn F et al. Intraocular Pressure and Trabecular Meshwork Outflow Facility After Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty. J Glaucoma. 2016; 25(3): 263-8. http://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000208.
39. Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES et al. Precut tissue for Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: vision, astigmatism, and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116(2): 248-56. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.017.
40. Terry MA, Straiko MD, Goshe JM et al. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: the tenuous relationship between donor thickness and postoperative vision. Ophthalmology. 2012; 119(10): 1988-96. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.05.021.
41. Wacker K, Bourne WM, Patel SV. Effect of Graft Thickness on Visual Acuity After Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016; 163: 18-28.
42. Verdier DD, Sugar A, Baratz K et al.; Cornea Donor Study Investigator Group. Corneal thickness as a predictor of corneal transplant outcome. Cornea. 2013; 32(6): 729-36. http://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0b013e31827b14c7.