Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 3250
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 65  |  Issue : 11  |  Page : 1133-1137

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


1 Moorfields Eye Hospital, London; Eye Clinic, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
2 Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK
3 Eye Clinic, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

Correspondence Address:
Ioannis Athanasiadis
Moorfields at Bedford Eye Clinic, Kempston Road, MK429DJ, Bedford
UK
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_360_17

Rights and Permissions

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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed694    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded137    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal