Cumulative Endothelial Cell Loss in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts From Preparation Through Insertion With Glass Injectors

Kenneth Downes, Khoa D. Tran, Christopher G. Stoeger, Winston Chamberlain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

RESULTS: Grafts injected using the DORC injector versus Jones tube injector had ECL of 29.2% ± 8.5% [95% confidence interval (CI)] versus 23.0% ± 5.1% (95% CI), respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.17); however, the patterns of ECL on the grafts was different between injectors. Peripheral ECL caused by trephination and surgeon grasp sites accounted for 7.5% ± 1.2% (95% CI).

CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference in ECL between the 2 injectors. There were characteristic differences in patterns of ECL seen between injectors, which may be clinically relevant and indicate the types of stress that grafts are exposed to during passage through various injectors.

PURPOSE: Evaluation of cumulative Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty endothelial cell loss (ECL) from preparation through injection using 2 different glass injectors.

METHODS: Eighteen Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts with "S" stamps were prepared by eye bank technicians. Nine grafts were assigned to injection with a modified glass Jones tube injector with a 2.4-mm opening and 9 were assigned to injection with the DORC glass pipette injector (<1.5-mm opening). The grafts were prepared and loaded into the injectors using the standard surgical technique, ejected onto a bed of viscoelastic on a glass slide, and unscrolled using viscoelastic. The grafts were stained with the vital dye Calcein-AM, then digitally imaged and analyzed using FIJI. The percentage of ECL was calculated by measuring the area of nonfluorescent pixels and dividing it by the total graft area pixels. A statistical comparison was performed using a 2-tailed unpaired t test.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)698-704
Number of pages7
JournalCornea
Volume37
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Descemet Membrane
Corneal Transplantation
Glass
Endothelial Cells
Transplants
Confidence Intervals
Injections
Eye Banks
Trephining
Hand Strength
Coloring Agents

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Cumulative Endothelial Cell Loss in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts From Preparation Through Insertion With Glass Injectors. / Downes, Kenneth; Tran, Khoa D.; Stoeger, Christopher G.; Chamberlain, Winston.

In: Cornea, Vol. 37, No. 6, 01.06.2018, p. 698-704.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3f5b393de318454b8d899f760f3749a0,
title = "Cumulative Endothelial Cell Loss in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts From Preparation Through Insertion With Glass Injectors",
abstract = "RESULTS: Grafts injected using the DORC injector versus Jones tube injector had ECL of 29.2{\%} ± 8.5{\%} [95{\%} confidence interval (CI)] versus 23.0{\%} ± 5.1{\%} (95{\%} CI), respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.17); however, the patterns of ECL on the grafts was different between injectors. Peripheral ECL caused by trephination and surgeon grasp sites accounted for 7.5{\%} ± 1.2{\%} (95{\%} CI).CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference in ECL between the 2 injectors. There were characteristic differences in patterns of ECL seen between injectors, which may be clinically relevant and indicate the types of stress that grafts are exposed to during passage through various injectors.PURPOSE: Evaluation of cumulative Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty endothelial cell loss (ECL) from preparation through injection using 2 different glass injectors.METHODS: Eighteen Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts with {"}S{"} stamps were prepared by eye bank technicians. Nine grafts were assigned to injection with a modified glass Jones tube injector with a 2.4-mm opening and 9 were assigned to injection with the DORC glass pipette injector (<1.5-mm opening). The grafts were prepared and loaded into the injectors using the standard surgical technique, ejected onto a bed of viscoelastic on a glass slide, and unscrolled using viscoelastic. The grafts were stained with the vital dye Calcein-AM, then digitally imaged and analyzed using FIJI. The percentage of ECL was calculated by measuring the area of nonfluorescent pixels and dividing it by the total graft area pixels. A statistical comparison was performed using a 2-tailed unpaired t test.",
author = "Kenneth Downes and Tran, {Khoa D.} and Stoeger, {Christopher G.} and Winston Chamberlain",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ICO.0000000000001588",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "698--704",
journal = "Cornea",
issn = "0277-3740",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cumulative Endothelial Cell Loss in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts From Preparation Through Insertion With Glass Injectors

AU - Downes, Kenneth

AU - Tran, Khoa D.

AU - Stoeger, Christopher G.

AU - Chamberlain, Winston

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - RESULTS: Grafts injected using the DORC injector versus Jones tube injector had ECL of 29.2% ± 8.5% [95% confidence interval (CI)] versus 23.0% ± 5.1% (95% CI), respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.17); however, the patterns of ECL on the grafts was different between injectors. Peripheral ECL caused by trephination and surgeon grasp sites accounted for 7.5% ± 1.2% (95% CI).CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference in ECL between the 2 injectors. There were characteristic differences in patterns of ECL seen between injectors, which may be clinically relevant and indicate the types of stress that grafts are exposed to during passage through various injectors.PURPOSE: Evaluation of cumulative Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty endothelial cell loss (ECL) from preparation through injection using 2 different glass injectors.METHODS: Eighteen Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts with "S" stamps were prepared by eye bank technicians. Nine grafts were assigned to injection with a modified glass Jones tube injector with a 2.4-mm opening and 9 were assigned to injection with the DORC glass pipette injector (<1.5-mm opening). The grafts were prepared and loaded into the injectors using the standard surgical technique, ejected onto a bed of viscoelastic on a glass slide, and unscrolled using viscoelastic. The grafts were stained with the vital dye Calcein-AM, then digitally imaged and analyzed using FIJI. The percentage of ECL was calculated by measuring the area of nonfluorescent pixels and dividing it by the total graft area pixels. A statistical comparison was performed using a 2-tailed unpaired t test.

AB - RESULTS: Grafts injected using the DORC injector versus Jones tube injector had ECL of 29.2% ± 8.5% [95% confidence interval (CI)] versus 23.0% ± 5.1% (95% CI), respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.17); however, the patterns of ECL on the grafts was different between injectors. Peripheral ECL caused by trephination and surgeon grasp sites accounted for 7.5% ± 1.2% (95% CI).CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference in ECL between the 2 injectors. There were characteristic differences in patterns of ECL seen between injectors, which may be clinically relevant and indicate the types of stress that grafts are exposed to during passage through various injectors.PURPOSE: Evaluation of cumulative Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty endothelial cell loss (ECL) from preparation through injection using 2 different glass injectors.METHODS: Eighteen Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts with "S" stamps were prepared by eye bank technicians. Nine grafts were assigned to injection with a modified glass Jones tube injector with a 2.4-mm opening and 9 were assigned to injection with the DORC glass pipette injector (<1.5-mm opening). The grafts were prepared and loaded into the injectors using the standard surgical technique, ejected onto a bed of viscoelastic on a glass slide, and unscrolled using viscoelastic. The grafts were stained with the vital dye Calcein-AM, then digitally imaged and analyzed using FIJI. The percentage of ECL was calculated by measuring the area of nonfluorescent pixels and dividing it by the total graft area pixels. A statistical comparison was performed using a 2-tailed unpaired t test.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049103056&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85049103056&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001588

DO - 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001588

M3 - Article

C2 - 29561351

AN - SCOPUS:85049103056

VL - 37

SP - 698

EP - 704

JO - Cornea

JF - Cornea

SN - 0277-3740

IS - 6

ER -