Posters

Comparison of three different injector systems for Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK)

Poster Details

First Author: K. Droutsas GREECE

Co Author(s):    A. Lazaridis   S. Souki   W. Sekundo        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare the safety of 3 commercially available injectors for Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK).

Setting:

University Eye Clinic Marburg, Germany

Methods:

All DMEK surgeries performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2010 and 2012 with a completed 12 month follow-up exam were sorted out and cases with complicated graft preparation were excluded. According to the injector system used, 3 groups were formed. Group 1 (DMEK surgical disposable set, D.O.R.C., Netherlands) (n=16), group 2 (Pasteur laboratory pipette, VWR, Darmstadt, Germany) (n=46) and group 3 (DMEK instrument set, Geuder, Germany) (n=24). Endothelial cell density and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) before, at 3, 6 and 12 months after DMEK were analysed and compared. Rate of air reinjection was evaluated. All eyes were pseudophakic except for 3 eyes with a clear crystalline lens (was left in situ) and 5 eyes with cataract (those underwent triple DMEK). Mean ECD reduction at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively was 27%, 33% and 39% (group 1); 39%, 44% and 45% (group 2) and 32%, 34% and 43% (group 3) ((P=0.131, Two Ways ANOVA). Mean logMAR showed no statistically significant difference between groups (P>0.05, Kruskal Wallis Test). Repeat intracameral air injection was performed in 6% (n=1, group 1), 17% (n=8, group 2) and 17% (n=4, group 3) (P=0.546, Pearson X2).

Results:

No statistically significant difference in endothelial cell loss or rate of air reinjection was found among the three groups. Thus, although group 1 (DORC injector) showed the least endothelial cell loss, all 3 injectors may be considered as safe and used according to surgeon`s preference.

Conclusions:

FINANCIAL DISCLOUSRE: NONE