The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Wilmer Eye Institute, Cornea, Cataract, and External Diseases, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011 Apr;39(3):195-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02461.x. Epub 2011 Jan 14.
Although Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty has replaced penetrating keratoplasty for primary treatment of endothelial disorders, many patients have already undergone penetrating keratoplasty. It is unclear when repeat penetrating keratoplasty is necessary or when endothelial keratoplasty may restore clarity to a failed graft.
Retrospective case series of patients undergoing Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty after penetrating keratoplasty by three surgeons at an academic tertiary care centre.
Eight patients with Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty after penetrating keratoplasty from 2006 to 2009.
Microkeratome-prepared Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty donor tissue was used. In seven cases, the penetrating keratoplasty bed was neither stripped nor scraped, and in one, scraping only was performed.
Preoperative and 6-month postoperative best-corrected visual acuities in logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution).
The average pre-Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty best-corrected visual acuity was 1.375, and the average best-corrected visual acuity 6months postoperatively was logMAR 1.0, a 2.5-fold improvement in the minimum angle of resolution (P=0.22). Seven of the eight patients showed an improvement in best-corrected visual acuity, and one patient had failure of Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and required penetrating keratoplasty. Five had a postoperative event: one had a gap that resolved spontaneously, three required rebubblings (injections of air only without otherwise repositioning the graft), and one experienced graft failure.
Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty can successfully rescue a prior penetrating keratoplasty, even with a fairly high detachment rate. Given these favourable visual outcomes, further study of this promising strategy is justified.
虽然撕囊全自动角膜内皮移植术已取代穿透性角膜移植术成为治疗内皮功能障碍的主要手段,但仍有许多患者已接受过穿透性角膜移植术。目前尚不清楚何时需要再次进行穿透性角膜移植术,也不清楚何时内皮角膜移植术可以恢复失败移植物的透明度。
在学术性三级护理中心,由三位外科医生对 8 例穿透性角膜移植术后行撕囊全自动角膜内皮移植术的患者进行回顾性病例系列研究。
2006 年至 2009 年,8 例穿透性角膜移植术后行撕囊全自动角膜内皮移植术的患者。
使用微角膜刀制备的撕囊全自动角膜内皮移植术供体组织。在 7 例中,穿透性角膜移植床既未剥离也未刮除,而在 1 例中仅进行了刮除。
术前和术后 6 个月最佳矫正视力的 logMAR(最小分辨角对数)。
撕囊全自动角膜内皮移植术前平均最佳矫正视力为 1.375,术后 6 个月平均最佳矫正视力为 logMAR 1.0,最小分辨角对数提高了 2.5 倍(P=0.22)。8 例患者中有 7 例视力改善,1 例撕囊全自动角膜内皮移植术失败,需要再次行穿透性角膜移植术。5 例患者术后出现并发症:1 例出现自行愈合的裂孔,3 例需要再次注气(仅注入空气而未重新定位移植物),1 例发生移植物失败。
撕囊全自动角膜内皮移植术可以成功挽救先前的穿透性角膜移植术,即使存在较高的脱离率。鉴于这些良好的视力结果,进一步研究这种有前途的策略是合理的。