Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A fuller picture? National registry studies and the assessment of corneal graft outcomes
  1. Emma J Hollick
  1. Ophthalmology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Emma J Hollick, Ophthalmology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London SE5 9RS, London, UK; emma.hollick{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Numerous corneal graft studies have demonstrated that the Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) potentially delivers better patient outcomes than Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK). Performed successfully, DMEK has been shown to deliver better and more rapid recovery of vision, although this difference has narrowed with the introduction of thinner DSEK tissue.1 2 DMEK also has lower rejection rates than DSEK.3 4

However, DMEK is considered a more challenging technique than DSEK with higher rates of early graft failure. One major randomised controlled trial (RCT) reported that surgical failures requiring retransplantation occurred in 7% of DMEK cases, compared with 0% of DSEK cases.5 Early graft failure can be caused by iatrogenic damage due to prolonged donor manipulation or upside-down orientation. Donor grafts may be difficult to unfold due to fibrin or haemorrhage sticking the DMEK scroll together and, in such cases, either the donor is reinserted after the fibrin has been removed or the donor material is lost. DMEK has also been shown to be associated with higher levels of rebubbling, usually performed if more than one third of the graft is detached.6 7 In two recent RCTs comparing EK techniques, 24% of DMEKs were rebubbled compared with only 4% of DSEK cases.5 8 A recent large cohort reported a DMEK rebubbling rate of 32%.6 Rebubbling is inconvenient for the patient and not always successful: in almost a third of rebubbled cases reported …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Clinical science
    Suryan Dunker Bjorn Winkens Frank van den Biggelaar Rudy Nuijts Pieter Jan Kruit Mor Dickman on behalf of the Dutch Cornea Consortium Marjolijn C Bartels Yanny Y Cheng Bart T H van Dooren Cathrien A Eggink Annette J M Geerards Tom A van Goor Ype P Henry Ruth Lapid-Gortzak Chantal M van Luijk Ivanka J van der Meulen Carla P Nieuwendaal Siamak Nobacht Monica T P Odenthal Lies Remeijer Jeroen van Rooij Nathalie T Y Santana Remco Stoutenbeek Mei L Tang Thijs Vaessen Nienke Visser Robert H J Wijdh Robert P L Wisse Michel J W Zaal