Cargando…

Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty

PURPOSE: Minimal loss of corneal endothelial cells during corneal transplantation is a major target but remains a point of controversy among specialists. Hence, the available method to best achieve this continues to stir progress in the field. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of the Endo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tsatsos, Michael, Athanasiadis, Ioannis, Kopsachilis, Nikolaos, Krishnan, Radhika, Hossain, Parwez, Anderson, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29133638
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_360_17
_version_ 1783281151650037760
author Tsatsos, Michael
Athanasiadis, Ioannis
Kopsachilis, Nikolaos
Krishnan, Radhika
Hossain, Parwez
Anderson, David
author_facet Tsatsos, Michael
Athanasiadis, Ioannis
Kopsachilis, Nikolaos
Krishnan, Radhika
Hossain, Parwez
Anderson, David
author_sort Tsatsos, Michael
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Minimal loss of corneal endothelial cells during corneal transplantation is a major target but remains a point of controversy among specialists. Hence, the available method to best achieve this continues to stir progress in the field. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of the Endosaver injector device for graft insertion in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) and compare the visual outcomes and endothelial cell survival between the Endosaver injector and Goosey grasping forceps insertion techniques. METHODS: This was a retrospective, interventional, consecutive case series undertaken at the University of Southampton Eye Department to assess outcomes of DSEK using the Endosaver injector device compared to noninjector DSEK insertion. Postoperative specular microscopy alongside manifest refraction at 6 and 12 months was evaluated and compared. Mann–Whitney U-test was employed for the statistical analysis of data. RESULTS: Both the Endosaver and Goosey forceps groups showed an improvement in best corrected visual acuity. No significant statistical difference was found in preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity between the Endosaver and non-Endosaver insertion groups. Mean preoperative endothelial cell count was 2660 (±130) for the Endosaver group and 2608 (±66) for the non-Endosaver group. Postoperative endothelial counts at 6 and 12 months showed a significant difference between the Endosaver: 2104 (±199)–1896 (±226) and the non-Endosaver: 1492 (±207)–1314 (±224) (P < 0.005) groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Endosaver injection device is associated with less trauma to endothelium during graft insertion due to the minimal touch technique employed. A smaller insertion wound of 4.0 mm compared to noninjector cases enabled a more stable system during surgery with no or minimal anterior chamber shallowing. The combination of a stable host with minimal endothelial graft handling and subsequent trauma potentially leads to higher endothelial cell counts when the Endosaver injection device is used compared to forceps insertion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5700580
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57005802017-12-01 Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty Tsatsos, Michael Athanasiadis, Ioannis Kopsachilis, Nikolaos Krishnan, Radhika Hossain, Parwez Anderson, David Indian J Ophthalmol Original Article PURPOSE: Minimal loss of corneal endothelial cells during corneal transplantation is a major target but remains a point of controversy among specialists. Hence, the available method to best achieve this continues to stir progress in the field. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of the Endosaver injector device for graft insertion in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) and compare the visual outcomes and endothelial cell survival between the Endosaver injector and Goosey grasping forceps insertion techniques. METHODS: This was a retrospective, interventional, consecutive case series undertaken at the University of Southampton Eye Department to assess outcomes of DSEK using the Endosaver injector device compared to noninjector DSEK insertion. Postoperative specular microscopy alongside manifest refraction at 6 and 12 months was evaluated and compared. Mann–Whitney U-test was employed for the statistical analysis of data. RESULTS: Both the Endosaver and Goosey forceps groups showed an improvement in best corrected visual acuity. No significant statistical difference was found in preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity between the Endosaver and non-Endosaver insertion groups. Mean preoperative endothelial cell count was 2660 (±130) for the Endosaver group and 2608 (±66) for the non-Endosaver group. Postoperative endothelial counts at 6 and 12 months showed a significant difference between the Endosaver: 2104 (±199)–1896 (±226) and the non-Endosaver: 1492 (±207)–1314 (±224) (P < 0.005) groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Endosaver injection device is associated with less trauma to endothelium during graft insertion due to the minimal touch technique employed. A smaller insertion wound of 4.0 mm compared to noninjector cases enabled a more stable system during surgery with no or minimal anterior chamber shallowing. The combination of a stable host with minimal endothelial graft handling and subsequent trauma potentially leads to higher endothelial cell counts when the Endosaver injection device is used compared to forceps insertion. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5700580/ /pubmed/29133638 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_360_17 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Tsatsos, Michael
Athanasiadis, Ioannis
Kopsachilis, Nikolaos
Krishnan, Radhika
Hossain, Parwez
Anderson, David
Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty
title Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty
title_full Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty
title_fullStr Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty
title_short Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty
title_sort comparison of the endosaver with noninjector techniques in descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29133638
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_360_17
work_keys_str_mv AT tsatsosmichael comparisonoftheendosaverwithnoninjectortechniquesindescemetsstrippingendothelialkeratoplasty
AT athanasiadisioannis comparisonoftheendosaverwithnoninjectortechniquesindescemetsstrippingendothelialkeratoplasty
AT kopsachilisnikolaos comparisonoftheendosaverwithnoninjectortechniquesindescemetsstrippingendothelialkeratoplasty
AT krishnanradhika comparisonoftheendosaverwithnoninjectortechniquesindescemetsstrippingendothelialkeratoplasty
AT hossainparwez comparisonoftheendosaverwithnoninjectortechniquesindescemetsstrippingendothelialkeratoplasty
AT andersondavid comparisonoftheendosaverwithnoninjectortechniquesindescemetsstrippingendothelialkeratoplasty