Comparison of Tri-folded and Scroll-based Graft Viability in Preloaded Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty

Purpose: To compare corneal endothelial damage associated with 2 techniques for preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): a tri-folded graft stored in a plastic cartridge designed for DMEK and a scrolled graft stored in a modified Jones Tube, at the time of preparation and after shipping. Methods: DMEK grafts were prepared at the Rocky Mountain Lions Eye Bank. The grafts were either tri-folded and loaded in a plastic cartridge or scrolled and loaded into a modified Jones Tube. In each group, the grafts were then either immediately removed from the cartridges or shipped for 48 hours. The grafts were then stained with Calcein AM and imaged using a fluorescent microscope. Endothelial cell loss (ECL) was determined using trainable segmentation in Fiji by 2 graders. At each time point, rates of ECL loss were compared across the 2 groups. To explore the role of donor characteristics, a multivariable regression model was produced to account for method (tri-folding vs. scroll), donor age, donor gender, death-to-preservation time, death-to-preparation time, and shipping. Results: A total of 40 grafts were prepared, processed, imaged, and analyzed. No significant difference in cell loss was seen between groups at either time point alone. In the multivariate model, no significant increase in cell loss was associated with either tri-folding (3.7% less ECL; P = 0.051) or shipping (4.3% less ECL; P = 0.049). Conclusions: All techniques used resulted in clinically acceptable levels of ECL. Tri-folded tissue in a plastic cartridge did not result in ECL inferior to a scroll when prepared either immediately or preloaded for 48 hours.

[1]  S. Ferrari,et al.  Clinical Outcomes of Preloaded Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts With Endothelium Tri-Folded Inwards. , 2018, American journal of ophthalmology.

[2]  N. Durr,et al.  Viability of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts Folded in the Eye Bank , 2018, Cornea.

[3]  D. DeMill,et al.  Preloaded Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Donor Tissue: Surgical Technique and Early Clinical Results , 2018, Cornea.

[4]  S. Ferrari,et al.  Comparison of preservation and transportation protocols for preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty , 2017, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[5]  D. DeMill,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Endothelial Cell Loss in Preloaded Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts , 2017, Cornea.

[6]  Christopher G. Stoeger,et al.  Evaluation and Quality Assessment of Prestripped, Preloaded Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts , 2017, Cornea.

[7]  S. Ferrari,et al.  Endothelium‐in versus endothelium‐out for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft preparation and implantation , 2017, Acta ophthalmologica.

[8]  S. Ferrari,et al.  Preloaded Tissues for Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty. , 2016, American journal of ophthalmology.

[9]  D. Ponzin,et al.  Contact Lens-Assisted Pull-Through Technique for Delivery of Tri-Folded (Endothelium in) DMEK Grafts Minimizes Surgical Time and Cell Loss. , 2016, Ophthalmology.

[10]  Christopher G. Stoeger,et al.  Imaging and Quantification of Endothelial Cell Loss in Eye Bank Prepared DMEK Grafts Using Trainable Segmentation Software , 2014, Current eye research.

[11]  F. Price,et al.  Update on Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) , 2013, International ophthalmology clinics.

[12]  Johannes E. Schindelin,et al.  Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis , 2012, Nature Methods.

[13]  I. Dapena,et al.  Endothelial keratoplasty: DSEK/DSAEK or DMEK - the thinner the better? , 2009, Current opinion in ophthalmology.