Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Ophthalmol. May 12, 2015; 5(2): 36-44
Published online May 12, 2015. doi: 10.5318/wjo.v5.i2.36
Table 1 Comparison between ultra thin-Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty
Corneal layers involvedA double microkeratome pass to achieve a thin layer of donor central posterior stroma with the Descemet membrane and endothelium attachedDonor Descemet membrane and endothelium only
Thickness< 130 µm14-20 µm
preparation by eyebanksWidely available from eyebanksMostly prepared intraoperatively by surgeons, provided by a limited number of eyebanks
Donor selectionSame criteria as DSAEK, less stringentPreferably in older donors, as grafts from younger donors are more difficult to harvest and unroll
Recipient selectionSame criteria as DSAEK, less stringentLess suitable in recipient with a shallow anterior chamber or complicated anatomy
Technical challengesSimilar technique compared with DSAEKDonor preparation, insertion and manipulation of graft present a learning curve
Operative timeShorterLonger
BCVASimilar percentage of eyes achieving 20/20 at 1 yr, but DMEK allows faster visual recovery with a higher percentage at 6 mo
Endothelial cell loss at 1 yrSimilar with around 35%
Tissue loss2.8%4.2%
Primary failure1.4%8.1%
Rejection probability at 1 yr2.44%1%
Rejection rate at 1 yr2.8%5.7%
Graft dislocation (partial)3.9%9%-92%
Rebubbling rate3.9%3%-17%