The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

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

Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty
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 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.
0301-4738
Tsatos, Michael
49820135-c443-4bb0-aa7c-f602ea3207af
Hossain, Parwez
563de5fc-84ad-4539-9228-bde0237eaf51
Tsatos, Michael
49820135-c443-4bb0-aa7c-f602ea3207af
Hossain, Parwez
563de5fc-84ad-4539-9228-bde0237eaf51

Tsatos, Michael and Hossain, Parwez (2017) Comparison of the Endosaver with noninjector techniques in Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 65 (11). (doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_360_17).

Record type: Article

Abstract

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.

Text
IndianJOphthalmol_2017_65_11_1133_218045 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons GNU LGPL (Software).
Download (5MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 1 September 2017
Published date: November 2017

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 415749
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/415749
ISSN: 0301-4738
PURE UUID: 3b663b42-1b1e-488e-95d8-d13fbce30576
ORCID for Parwez Hossain: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3131-2395

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 22 Nov 2017 17:30
Last modified: 20 Jul 2019 00:55

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×