Graft Biomechanics Following Three Corneal Transplantation Techniques

Purpose: To compare corneal biomechanical properties following three different transplantation techniques, including Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK), deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK) in comparison to normal eyes. Methods: This cross-sectional comparative study included 118 eyes: 17 eyes of 17 patients received DSAEK, 23 eyes of 21 patients underwent DALK using Anwar's big bubble technique, and 45 eyes of 36 patients had PK; 33 right eyes of 33 normal subjects served as the control group. Using the ocular response analyzer (ORA, Reichert Ophthalmic Instruments, Buffalo, New York, USA), corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) were measured and compared among the study groups at least 3 months after all sutures were removed. Results: Mean patient age was 26.9 ± 5.0 years in the control group, 28.8 ± 4.2 in the PK group, 27.2 ± 6.5 in the DALK group, and 62.5 ± 16.8 in the DSAEK group (P < 0.001). Central corneal thickness (CCT) was 539.0 ± 24.8, 567.5 ± 38.8, 547.0 ± 42.6 and 631.1 ± 84.8 μm, respectively (P < 0.001). CH and CRF were significantly lower in the DSAEK group (7.79 ± 2.0 and 7.88 ± 1.74 mmHg, respectively) as compared to the PK (10.23 ± 2.07 and 10.13 ± 2.22 mmHg, respectively) and DALK (9.64 ± 2.07 and 9.36 ± 2.09 mmHg, respectively) groups. The two latter groups demonstrated biomechanical parameters comparable to normal subjects (9.84 ± 1.59 and 9.89 ± 1.73 mmHg, respectively). Conclusion: Graft biomechanical parameters after DSAEK are lower than those following PK and DALK. After PK and DALK in keratoconic eyes, these metrics are increased to normal values. These differences may have implications for interpreting intraocular pressure or planning graft refractive surgery after keratoplasty.

[1]  C. Qualls,et al.  Relative Importance of Factors Affecting Corneal Hysteresis Measurement , 2012, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[2]  S. Feizi,et al.  Comparison of the ocular response analyzer and the Goldmann applanation tonometer for measuring intraocular pressure after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  L. Kanecadan,et al.  Bullous keratopathy. , 2011, Ophthalmology.

[4]  N. Yenerel,et al.  Changes in Corneal Biomechanics in Patients With Keratoconus After Penetrating Keratoplasty , 2010, Cornea.

[5]  A. Bayer,et al.  The Relationship Between Corneal Biomechanical Properties and Confocal Microscopy Findings in Normal and Keratoconic Eyes , 2010, Cornea.

[6]  S. Yazdani,et al.  Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty Versus Penetrating Keratoplasty for Keratoconus: A Clinical Trial , 2010, Cornea.

[7]  S. Feizi,et al.  Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty in Patients with Keratoconus: Big-Bubble Technique , 2010, Cornea.

[8]  E. Espana,et al.  Intraocular pressure changes following Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty , 2010, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[9]  K. Shimizu,et al.  Effect of aging on corneal biomechanical parameters using the ocular response analyzer. , 2009, Journal of refractive surgery.

[10]  Soliman A Al-Kharashi,et al.  Deep anterior lamellar Keratoplasty. , 2009, Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society.

[11]  Roni M. Shtein,et al.  Ophthalmic Technology Assessment Descemet ’ s Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty : Safety and Outcomes , 2022 .

[12]  Teruyo Kida,et al.  Effects of aging on corneal biomechanical properties and their impact on 24-hour measurement of intraocular pressure. , 2008, American journal of ophthalmology.

[13]  K. Sugiyama,et al.  In vivo laser confocal microscopy after descemet stripping with automated endothelial keratoplasty. , 2008, American journal of ophthalmology.

[14]  J. Alió,et al.  Corneal biomechanical properties in normal, post‐laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconic eyes , 2007, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[15]  M. Shimmyo,et al.  Corneal hysteresis following descemetorhexis with endokeratoplasty , 2007, Annals of ophthalmology.

[16]  Sunil Shah,et al.  The use of the Reichert ocular response analyser to establish the relationship between ocular hysteresis, corneal resistance factor and central corneal thickness in normal eyes. , 2006, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[17]  D. Luce Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[18]  Catey Bunce,et al.  Comparison of deep lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[19]  K. Tsubota,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of deep lamellar keratoplasty vs penetrating keratoplasty. , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  M. Doubrava,et al.  In Vivo Confocal Microscopy of Fuchs' Endothelial Dystrophy , 1998, Cornea.

[21]  A. Ljubimov,et al.  Increased Expression of Fibrillin‐1 in Human Corneas with Bullous Keratopathy , 1998, Cornea.

[22]  A. Nesburn,et al.  Extracellular matrix alterations in human corneas with bullous keratopathy. , 1996, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.