ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To describe a new technique for handling Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) specimens intraoperatively and during processing. METHODS: The processing method begins by adding a drop of eosin to the specimen intraoperatively, followed by submersion in 10% formalin solution. The specimen appears reddish, allowing for easy identification and is floated onto an immersed slide to maintain an unfolded flattened specimen. After bisection, one half is stained with hematoxylin and eosin and covered with a cover slip, whereas the other half is transferred to filter paper and a cassette and is submitted for paraffin embedding on the cut edge. RESULTS: The technique reduces the chances of a specimen not surviving processing. The new method also allows for 2 views of DSAEK specimens, both topographical and cross-sectional, thus permitting analysis of endothelial cell density, spatial distribution of cells and guttae, endothelial cell count, and thickness measurements. CONCLUSIONS: A novel technique for handling DSAEK specimens to prevent loss and folding, while also allowing for cross-sectional and topographical viewing is reported.
Subject(s)
Descemet Membrane/pathology , Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty/methods , Endothelium, Corneal/pathology , Histocytological Preparation Techniques/methods , Specimen Handling/methods , Cell Count , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rarebit perimetry (RBP), a technique developed for the detection of early damage to the afferent visual system, has not been extensively tested at the bedside. This study was designed to test the feasibility of bedside testing with RBP in comparison with standard automated perimetry (SAP) performed in the clinic. METHODS: We tested 29 eyes of 15 subjects admitted with neurologic or neurosurgical diseases affecting the afferent visual system. RBP was performed on a laptop computer at the bedside. SAP (Humphrey field analyzer) testing was performed later in the clinic. Results were evaluated by a masked neuro-ophthalmologist. RESULTS: Visual fields corresponded between RBP and SAP in 21(72%) of the 29 tested eyes. RBP detected defects in 5 subjects who had normal visual field results on SAP. All subjects preferred RBP for convenience. CONCLUSION: RBP is a convenient method of bedside visual field testing and is no less sensitive to visual field defects in this role than SAP.
