Comparative evaluation of four Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft preparation techniques
Copyright © 2022 Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
OBJECTIVE: To compare subjective and objective outcomes of 4 different Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) peeling techniques performed by novice surgeons at different stages in their surgical career.
DESIGN: An ex vivo prospective study.
METHODS: In the first round, 2 DMEK peeling techniques were pitched against each other: the peripheral scoring and Sinskey dissection technique with the peripheral scoring and microhoe dissection and the peripheral blunt microhoe dissection against the scleral spurectomy and microhoe dissection. Three surgeons with different operative experience performed the peeling. Outcome measures included graft peeling time, surgeon's peeling difficulty grading (on a scale of 1-10, 1 being the easiest and 10 the hardest), number of radial and circumferential tears before and after trephination, and tissue loss. The 2 techniques that performed the best from the first round proceeded to the final round to identify the best overall technique.
RESULTS: In total, 90 tissues (45 pairs) were peeled by 3 surgeons. Following the first-round results, the peripheral scoring and Sinskey dissection and peripheral blunt microhoe dissection proceeded to the final round. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of peeling times, subjective feeling of difficulty, post-trephination tears, and peeling success rates (P > 0.05 for all). However, the peripheral scoring and Sinskey dissection technique had significantly fewer pretrephination radial tears (1.3 ± 1.3 vs 6.1 ± 5.2, P = 0.007) and circumferential tears (0.6 ± 0.9 vs 1.8 ± 2.1, P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the learning curve can be overcome quickly with appropriate DMEK peeling techniques. The peripheral scoring and Sinskey dissection peeling technique allows efficient peeling with fewer related tears.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:58 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie - 58(2023), 3 vom: 09. Juni, Seite 191-197 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Din, Nizar [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 08.05.2023 Date Revised 09.05.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jcjo.2022.01.017 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM336837445 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM336837445 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225233041.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jcjo.2022.01.017 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1122.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM336837445 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)35151620 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0008-4182(22)00020-5 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Din, Nizar |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparative evaluation of four Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft preparation techniques |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 08.05.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 09.05.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2022 Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: To compare subjective and objective outcomes of 4 different Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) peeling techniques performed by novice surgeons at different stages in their surgical career | ||
| 520 | |a DESIGN: An ex vivo prospective study | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: In the first round, 2 DMEK peeling techniques were pitched against each other: the peripheral scoring and Sinskey dissection technique with the peripheral scoring and microhoe dissection and the peripheral blunt microhoe dissection against the scleral spurectomy and microhoe dissection. Three surgeons with different operative experience performed the peeling. Outcome measures included graft peeling time, surgeon's peeling difficulty grading (on a scale of 1-10, 1 being the easiest and 10 the hardest), number of radial and circumferential tears before and after trephination, and tissue loss. The 2 techniques that performed the best from the first round proceeded to the final round to identify the best overall technique | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: In total, 90 tissues (45 pairs) were peeled by 3 surgeons. Following the first-round results, the peripheral scoring and Sinskey dissection and peripheral blunt microhoe dissection proceeded to the final round. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of peeling times, subjective feeling of difficulty, post-trephination tears, and peeling success rates (P > 0.05 for all). However, the peripheral scoring and Sinskey dissection technique had significantly fewer pretrephination radial tears (1.3 ± 1.3 vs 6.1 ± 5.2, P = 0.007) and circumferential tears (0.6 ± 0.9 vs 1.8 ± 2.1, P = 0.02) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the learning curve can be overcome quickly with appropriate DMEK peeling techniques. The peripheral scoring and Sinskey dissection peeling technique allows efficient peeling with fewer related tears | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mimouni, Michael |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Slomovic, Jacqueline |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Aldrees, Sultan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Trinh, Tanya |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cohen, Eyal |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gouvea, Larissa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Alshaker, Sara |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chan, Clara C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chew, Hall F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Singal, Neera |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rootman, David S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Slomovic, Allan R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie |d 1966 |g 58(2023), 3 vom: 09. Juni, Seite 191-197 |w (DE-627)NLM000001597 |x 1715-3360 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:58 |g year:2023 |g number:3 |g day:09 |g month:06 |g pages:191-197 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2022.01.017 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 58 |j 2023 |e 3 |b 09 |c 06 |h 191-197 | ||