Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 1389
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 68  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 762-768

Preparation of endothelial keratoplasty lenticules with Gebauer SLc Original versus Moria CBm Carriazo-Barraquer and Moria One-Use Plus microkeratomes


1 Ocular Tissue Engineering Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Central Eye Bank of Iran, Tehran, Iran
3 Ophthalmic Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mozhgan Rezaei Kanavi
Ocular Tissue Engineering Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, No 23, Paydarfard-9th Boostan St., Pasdaran Ave, Tehran - 1666673111
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1351_19

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: To investigate endothelial keratoplasty lenticules prepared from fresh whole eyes via Gebauer SLc Original (SLc) versus Moria CBm Carriazo-Barraquer (CBm), and those prepared from corneoscleral buttons via SLc versus Moria One-Use Plus (OUP) in terms of eye bank preparation criteria. Methods: Fresh whole eyes-dissected endothelial keratoplasty lenticules with SLc were compared with CBm in terms of thickness profile measurements, over/under dissection values, endothelial cell loss, and postoperative graft failures. A similar comparison was made between corneoscleral buttons-dissected endothelial keratoplasty lenticules with SLc and OUP. Results: Means of central thicknesses and increase of thickness toward periphery were not significantly different between 33 fresh whole eyes-dissected endothelial keratoplasty lenticules with SLc and 33 fresh whole eyes-dissected ones with CBm. There was no significant difference between 19 corneoscleral buttons-dissected endothelial keratoplasty lenticules with SLc and 19 corneoscleral buttons-dissected ones with OUP in terms of mean central thickness and post-cut endothelial cell loss. However, in the corneoscleral buttons-dissected endothelial keratoplasty lenticules, a mean increase of thickness was significantly different from central to two pericentral locations with OUP (P = 0.001) and from central to two peripheral parts with SLc (P = 0.011). Both CBm and OUP systems showed deeper dissection depths than head descriptions as compared to SLc (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Unlike fresh whole eyes-dissected endothelial keratoplasty lenticules with SLc or CBm, thickness profiles of corneoscleral buttons-dissected endothelial keratoplasty lenticules with both SLc and OUP systems showed a partial asymmetric increase of thickness toward the periphery. A high agreement was observed between endothelial keratoplasty lenticules thicknesses and SLc nomograms.


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

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

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed114    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded37    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal