Quantification and patterns of endothelial cell loss due to eye bank preparation and injector method in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissues

Julie M. Schallhorn, Jeffrey D. Holiman, Christopher G. Stoeger, Winston Chamberlain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate endothelial cell damage after eye bank preparation and passage through 1 of 2 different injectors for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts. Methods: Eighteen Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts were prepared by Lions VisionGift with the standard partial prepeel technique and placement of an S-stamp for orientation. The grafts were randomly assigned to injection with either a glass- modified Jones tube injector (Gunther Weiss Scientific Glass) or a closed-system intraocular lens injector (Viscoject 2.2; Medicel). After injection, the grafts were stained with the vital fluorescent dye C'alcein AM and digitally imaged. The percentage of cell loss was calculated by measuring the area of nonfluorescent pixels and dividing it by die total graft area pixels. Results: Grafts injected using the modified Jones tube injector had an overall cell loss of 27% ± 5% [95% confidence interval, 21%- 35%]. Grafts injected using the closed-system intraocular lens injector had a cell loss of 32% ± 8% (95% confidence interval, 21 %-45%). This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.3). Several damage patterns including damage due to S-stamp placement were observed, but they did not correlate with injector type. Conclusions: In this in vitro study, there was no difference in the cell loss associated with the injector method. Grafts in both groups sustained significant cell loss and displayed evidence of graft preparation and S-stamp placement. Improvement in graft preparation and injection methods may improve cell retention.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)377-382
Number of pages6
JournalCornea
Volume35
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Eye Banks
Descemet Membrane
Corneal Transplantation
Endothelium
Endothelial Cells
Transplants
Membranes
Intraocular Lenses
Injections
Glass
Confidence Intervals
Lions
Fluorescent Dyes

Keywords

  • Corneal transplantation
  • Dmek
  • Graft preparation
  • Injector

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Quantification and patterns of endothelial cell loss due to eye bank preparation and injector method in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissues. / Schallhorn, Julie M.; Holiman, Jeffrey D.; Stoeger, Christopher G.; Chamberlain, Winston.

In: Cornea, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2016, p. 377-382.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{aef019ee3ebe4ef5acc6d83801c0e45b,
title = "Quantification and patterns of endothelial cell loss due to eye bank preparation and injector method in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissues",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate endothelial cell damage after eye bank preparation and passage through 1 of 2 different injectors for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts. Methods: Eighteen Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts were prepared by Lions VisionGift with the standard partial prepeel technique and placement of an S-stamp for orientation. The grafts were randomly assigned to injection with either a glass- modified Jones tube injector (Gunther Weiss Scientific Glass) or a closed-system intraocular lens injector (Viscoject 2.2; Medicel). After injection, the grafts were stained with the vital fluorescent dye C'alcein AM and digitally imaged. The percentage of cell loss was calculated by measuring the area of nonfluorescent pixels and dividing it by die total graft area pixels. Results: Grafts injected using the modified Jones tube injector had an overall cell loss of 27{\%} ± 5{\%} [95{\%} confidence interval, 21{\%}- 35{\%}]. Grafts injected using the closed-system intraocular lens injector had a cell loss of 32{\%} ± 8{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval, 21 {\%}-45{\%}). This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.3). Several damage patterns including damage due to S-stamp placement were observed, but they did not correlate with injector type. Conclusions: In this in vitro study, there was no difference in the cell loss associated with the injector method. Grafts in both groups sustained significant cell loss and displayed evidence of graft preparation and S-stamp placement. Improvement in graft preparation and injection methods may improve cell retention.",
keywords = "Corneal transplantation, Dmek, Graft preparation, Injector",
author = "Schallhorn, {Julie M.} and Holiman, {Jeffrey D.} and Stoeger, {Christopher G.} and Winston Chamberlain",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1097/ICO.0000000000000690",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "377--382",
journal = "Cornea",
issn = "0277-3740",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantification and patterns of endothelial cell loss due to eye bank preparation and injector method in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissues

AU - Schallhorn, Julie M.

AU - Holiman, Jeffrey D.

AU - Stoeger, Christopher G.

AU - Chamberlain, Winston

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate endothelial cell damage after eye bank preparation and passage through 1 of 2 different injectors for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts. Methods: Eighteen Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts were prepared by Lions VisionGift with the standard partial prepeel technique and placement of an S-stamp for orientation. The grafts were randomly assigned to injection with either a glass- modified Jones tube injector (Gunther Weiss Scientific Glass) or a closed-system intraocular lens injector (Viscoject 2.2; Medicel). After injection, the grafts were stained with the vital fluorescent dye C'alcein AM and digitally imaged. The percentage of cell loss was calculated by measuring the area of nonfluorescent pixels and dividing it by die total graft area pixels. Results: Grafts injected using the modified Jones tube injector had an overall cell loss of 27% ± 5% [95% confidence interval, 21%- 35%]. Grafts injected using the closed-system intraocular lens injector had a cell loss of 32% ± 8% (95% confidence interval, 21 %-45%). This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.3). Several damage patterns including damage due to S-stamp placement were observed, but they did not correlate with injector type. Conclusions: In this in vitro study, there was no difference in the cell loss associated with the injector method. Grafts in both groups sustained significant cell loss and displayed evidence of graft preparation and S-stamp placement. Improvement in graft preparation and injection methods may improve cell retention.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate endothelial cell damage after eye bank preparation and passage through 1 of 2 different injectors for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts. Methods: Eighteen Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty grafts were prepared by Lions VisionGift with the standard partial prepeel technique and placement of an S-stamp for orientation. The grafts were randomly assigned to injection with either a glass- modified Jones tube injector (Gunther Weiss Scientific Glass) or a closed-system intraocular lens injector (Viscoject 2.2; Medicel). After injection, the grafts were stained with the vital fluorescent dye C'alcein AM and digitally imaged. The percentage of cell loss was calculated by measuring the area of nonfluorescent pixels and dividing it by die total graft area pixels. Results: Grafts injected using the modified Jones tube injector had an overall cell loss of 27% ± 5% [95% confidence interval, 21%- 35%]. Grafts injected using the closed-system intraocular lens injector had a cell loss of 32% ± 8% (95% confidence interval, 21 %-45%). This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.3). Several damage patterns including damage due to S-stamp placement were observed, but they did not correlate with injector type. Conclusions: In this in vitro study, there was no difference in the cell loss associated with the injector method. Grafts in both groups sustained significant cell loss and displayed evidence of graft preparation and S-stamp placement. Improvement in graft preparation and injection methods may improve cell retention.

KW - Corneal transplantation

KW - Dmek

KW - Graft preparation

KW - Injector

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959084481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959084481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000690

DO - 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000690

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 377

EP - 382

JO - Cornea

JF - Cornea

SN - 0277-3740

IS - 3

ER -