Aim To assess the influence of graft thickness and regularity on visual recovery and postoperative wavefront aberrations after endothelial keratoplasty (EK).
Methods 150 EKs performed in eyes with corneal endothelial disorders and no other ocular comorbidities, preoperative and postoperative assessment with spectral domain optical coherence tomography and postoperative assessment with whole eye wavefront aberrometry were retrospectively analysed. Eyes were classified into five groups: Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK), nanothin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSAEK) (15–49 µm), ultrathin DSAEK (50–99 µm), thin DSAEK (100–149 µm) and conventional DSAEK (150–250 µm).
Results The preoperative diagnosis was Fuchs dystrophy in 139 eyes (92.7%). The graft thickness measured after graft deswelling was in average 74 µm with a mean coefficient of variation of 17%. The average follow-up time was 32 months. The mean spectacle-corrected logarithm of minimum angle of resolution visual acuity improved from 0.76 (20/116) before surgery to 0.14 (20/27) at last follow-up visit. No significant differences in final visual acuity were found between the five groups. The time to reach 20/40 vision was significantly shorter in the DMEK and nanothin DSAEK groups compared with the remaining three DSAEK groups. No significant differences in postoperative aberrometry measurements were found between the five groups. Shorter time to reach 20/40 visual acuity was associated with better preoperative visual acuity and thinner graft. Higher final vision improvement was associated with poorer preoperative visual acuity. Higher postoperative high-order aberrations were associated with poorer preoperative visual acuity.
Conclusion The main advantage of DMEK and nanothin DSAEK over thicker DSAEKs was the rapidity of visual recovery. Final quality of vision was not influenced by graft thickness and regularity.
- endothelial keratoplasty
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MY and YC contributed to collection and/or assembly of data, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing and final approval of manuscript. JP contributed to collection and/or assembly of data and final approval of manuscript. CG contributed to collection and/or assembly of data, data analysis and interpretation and final approval of manuscript. SK and CT contributed to provision of study material or patients and final approval of manuscript. NB contributed to provision of study material or patients, collection and/or assembly of data, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing and final approval of manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests VB, Chiesi (Parma, Italy; consulting), Dompe (Milan, Italy; consulting), Optovue (Fremont, California, USA; consulting).
Patient consent for publication Obtained.
Ethics approval Approved by the Ethics Committee of the French Society of Ophthalmology and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article.
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.