Quality of vision and vision-related quality of life after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare quality of vision and vision-related quality of life (QOL) in patients undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) or ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). METHODS: Fifty-four eyes of 54 patients with Fuchs' dystrophy from six corneal clinics in the Netherlands were randomized to DMEK or ultrathin DSAEK and examined preoperatively, and 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Main outcome measures were corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs), contrast sensitivity, straylight and vision-related QOL. RESULTS: Posterior corneal HOAs decreased after DMEK and increased after ultrathin DSAEK (p ≤ 0.001) 3 months after surgery and correlated positively with best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (12 months: r = 0.29, p = 0.04). Anterior and total corneal HOAs did not differ significantly between both techniques at any time point. Contrast sensitivity was better (p = 0.01), and straylight was lower (p = 0.01) 3 months after DMEK compared with ultrathin DSAEK; 95% confidence interval [CI] of log(cs) 1.10-1.35 versus 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.12, and 95% CI: log(s) 1.18 to 1.43 versus 95% CI: 1.41 to 1.66, respectively. Both were comparable at later time points. Vision-related QOL (scale 0-100) did not differ significantly between both groups at any time point and improved significantly at 3 months (ß = 12 [95% CI: 7 to 16]; p < 0.001), and subsequently between 3 and 12 months (ß = 5 [95% CI: 0 to 9]; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) results in lower posterior corneal HOAs compared with ultrathin DSAEK. Contrast sensitivity and straylight recover faster after DMEK but reach similar levels with both techniques at 1 year. Vision-related QOL improved significantly after surgery, but did not differ between both techniques.

Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), refractive astigmatism, and complications after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK). DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-four pseudophakic eyes of 54 patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction resulting from Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy were enrolled in 6 corneal centers in The Netherlands. METHODS: Participants were allocated to DMEK (n = 29) or UT-DSAEK (n = 25) using minimization randomization based on preoperative BSCVA, recipient central corneal thickness, gender, age, and institution. Donor corneas were prestripped and precut for DMEK and UT-DSAEK, respectively. Six corneal surgeons participated in this study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was BSCVA at 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Central graft thickness of UT-DSAEK lamellae measured 101 µm (95% confidence interval [CI], 90-112 µm). Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity did not differ significantly between DMEK and UT-DSAEK groups at 3 months (0.15 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] [95% CI 0.08-0.22 logMAR] vs. 0.22 logMAR [95% CI 0.16-0.27 logMAR]; P = 0.15), 6 months (0.11 logMAR [95% CI 0.05-0.17 logMAR] vs. 0.16 logMAR [95% CI 0.12-0.21 logMAR]; P = 0.20), and 12 months (0.08 logMAR [95% CI 0.03-0.14 logMAR] vs. 0.15 logMAR [95% CI 0.10-0.19 logMAR]; P = 0.06). Twelve months after surgery, the percentage of eyes reaching 20/25 Snellen BSCVA was higher in DMEK compared with UT-DSAEK (66% vs. 33%; P = 0.02). Endothelial cell density did not differ significantly 12 months after DMEK and UT-DSAEK (1870 cells/mm2 [95% CI 1670-2069 cells/mm2] vs. 1612 cells/mm2 [95% CI 1326-1898 cells/mm2]; P = 0.12). Both techniques induced a mild hyperopic shift (12 months: +0.22 diopter [D; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.68 D] for DMEK vs. +0.58 D [95% CI 0.13-1.03 D] for UT-DSAEK; P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and UT-DSAEK did not differ significantly in mean BSCVA, but the percentage of eyes achieving 20/25 Snellen vision was significantly higher with DMEK. Endothelial cell loss did not differ significantly between the treatment groups, and both techniques induced a minimal hyperopic shift.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus DSAEK.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus standard DSAEK. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multicentre randomized clinical trial was performed. The time horizon was 12 months postoperatively. Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy were included and randomized to UT-DSAEK (n = 33) or DSAEK (n = 31). Relevant resources from healthcare and societal perspectives were included in the cost analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 questionnaire. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental societal costs per QALY). RESULTS: Societal costs were €9431 (US$11 586) for UT-DSAEK and €9110 (US$11 192) for DSAEK. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.74 in both groups. The ICER indicated inferiority of UT-DSAEK. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged from 37% to 42%, assuming the maximum acceptable ICER ranged from €2500-€80 000 (US$3071-US$98 280) per QALY. Additional analyses were performed omitting one UT-DSAEK patient who required a regraft [ICER €9057 (US$11 127) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 44-62%] and correcting QALYs for an imbalance in baseline utilities [ICER €23 827 (US$29 271) per QALY, cost-effectiveness probability: 36-59%]. Furthermore, the ICER was €2101 (US$2581) per patient with clinical improvement in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (≥0.2 logMAR) and €3274 (US$4022) per patient with clinical improvement in National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 composite score (≥10 points). CONCLUSION: The base case analysis favoured DSAEK, since costs of UT-DSAEK were higher while QALYs were comparable. However, additional analyses revealed no preference for UT-DSAEK or DSAEK. Further cost-effectiveness studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

A Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial of Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSAEK) versus DSAEK.

OBJECTIVE: To compare visual acuity, refraction, endothelial cell density (ECD), and complications after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and ultrathin DSAEK (UT-DSAEK). DESIGN: A multicenter, prospective, double-masked, randomized, controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: From 66 patients with irreversible corneal endothelial dysfunction dues to Fuchs' dystrophy who enrolled from 4 tertiary medical centers in the Netherlands, 66 eyes were studied. METHODS: Participants were centrally randomized to undergo either UT-DSAEK or DSAEK, based on preoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), recipient central corneal thickness, patient age, and recruitment center. Donor corneas were precut by a single cornea bank. PARTICIPANTS: Participants underwent ophthalmic examinations preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months after the operation, including manifest refraction, BSCVA using an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart, and endothelium imaging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: BSCVA 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Preoperative BSCVA did not differ between patients undergoing DSAEK (0.35 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.27-0.43]; n = 32) and UT-DSAEK (0.37 logMAR [95% CI 0.31-0.43]; n = 34; P = 0.8). BSCVA was significantly better after UT-DSAEK compared with that after DSAEK at 3 months (0.17 logMAR [95% CI 0.13-0.21], n = 31 vs. 0.28 logMAR [95% CI 0.23-0.33], n = 31; P = 0.001), 6 months (0.14 logMAR [95% CI 0.10-0.18], n = 30 vs. 0.24 logMAR [95% CI 0.20-0.28], n = 30; P = 0.002), and 12 months (0.13 logMAR [95% CI 0.09-0.17], n = 33 vs. 0.20 logMAR [95% CI 0.15-0.25], n = 29; P = 0.03). Refraction, ECD loss (40% at 3 months; P < 0.001), donor loss (DSAEK n = 2 vs. UT-DSAEK n = 3 [relative risk {RR} 1.4 {95% CI 0.24-7.5}; P = 0.7]), and graft dislocation (DSAEK n = 5 vs. UT-DSAEK n = 5 [RR 1.0 {95% CI 0.34-3.33}; P = 0.9]) did not differ between UT-DSAEK and DSAEK. Donor thickness was significantly thinner for UT-DSAEK (101 µm [95% CI 93-110 µm]; range 50-145 µm) than for DSAEK (209 µm [95% CI 196-222 µm]; range 147-289 µm; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that compared with DSAEK, UT-DSAEK results in faster and better recovery of BSCVA with similar refractive outcomes, endothelial cell loss, and incidence of complications.