
==== Front
Jpn J Ophthalmol
Jpn J Ophthalmol
Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology
0021-5155
1613-2246
Springer Japan Tokyo

39083145
1083
10.1007/s10384-024-01083-1
Forefront Review
The progress and future of corneal endothelial transplantation
Shimizu Toshiki
Yamagami Satoru
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4578-0384
Hayashi Takahiko takamed@gmail.com

https://ror.org/05jk51a88 grid.260969.2 0000 0001 2149 8846 Department of Ophthalmology, Department of Visual Sciences, Nihon University School of Medicine, Itabashi, Tokyo Japan
31 7 2024
31 7 2024
2024
68 5 429442
14 12 2023
22 5 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Endothelial transplantation has recently been accepted worldwide, in the long history of corneal transplantation. The introduction of endothelial keratoplasty (Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty) has enabled us to expand the surgical indications owing to the low incidence of rejection and quick recovery of visual function. New technologies have been developed to ensure stable postoperative outcomes with a shorter learning curve, such as transplantation using cultured human endothelial cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) or new devices such as artificial endothelium. This review discusses the history and characteristics of corneal transplantation alongside new treatment options that may offer hope for patients with endothelial disease in the future.

Keywords

Corneal endothelial transplantation
Corneal transplantation
DSAEK
DMEK
issue-copyright-statement© Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Corneal anatomy and physiology

The cornea is transparent and dome-shaped and, together with the lens, responsible for the refraction of the eye. The cornea consists of 5 layers: the epithelium, Bowman layer, stroma, Descemet membrane (DM), and corneal endothelium (Fig. 1). The corneal epithelium consists of 5 to 6 layers of squamous epithelium with tight junctions between the cells, which mainly act as a barrier against the outside environment. The Bowman layer is a strong membrane with randomly arranged collagen fibers. The corneal stroma, comprising approximately 200 layers of collagen, constitutes more than 90% of the total corneal thickness. In contrast to the Bowman layer, the main components of the corneal stroma are an extracellular matrix of proteoglycans, collagen, and keratocytes. Collagen fibers composed of collagen I and V are regularly arranged to maintain transparency. The DM is a basement membrane secreted by endothelial cells. It is a strong tissue composed mainly of type IV and VIII collagen and is important for maintaining the morphology of the cornea. The corneal endothelium is the innermost layer of flat cells. When observed from the anterior chamber, it is mainly hexagonal in shape. The corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) is approximately 3000 cells/mm2 in a healthy cornea at age 20 [1]. When the ECD decreases below 500 cells/mm2, corneal transparency cannot be maintained (Fig. 2a).

Fig. 1 Illustration of corneal structure. From the superficial layer, the epithelium, Bowman layer, stroma, Descemet membrane, and endothelium are arranged in that order. Dendritic cells are resident in the corneal stroma

Fig. 2 Anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) photographs of each keratoplasty. a Bullous keratopathy. The corneal stroma is edematous, and the Descemet membrane is visible on the posterior surface of the cornea. b Penetrating keratopathy. The continuity of the cornea is broken. c, d Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. The graft is adhered to the posterior surface of the cornea, forming a step. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. The graft is so thin that it is difficult to recognize it with AS-OCT

Endothelial keratoplasty (EK) is required when corneal transparency is reduced owing to endothelial dysfunction, such as in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) and bullous keratopathy (BK), or when photophobia and vision loss occur with mild endothelial loss. The development of EK has led to significant advances in corneal transplantation over the past 20 years. In this review, we discuss the history of corneal transplantation and EK, the characteristics of each transplantation procedure, and the future of corneal transplantation.

History of corneal transplantation

Corneal transplantation is the most common solid organ transplant performed worldwide [2, 3]. The history of penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) is long, with Eduard Zirm performing the first successful all-layer corneal transplantation in 1905 [4]. Subsequently, the number of PKP procedures increased, and it remained the primary option for several decades. Complications specific to PKP, such as postoperative astigmatism, graft rejection, decreased corneal strength, and suture-related infections, can occur and must be properly controlled. Suturing grafts and large wounds represent some of the major postoperative challenges for this procedure.

In diseases with the affected area limited to the corneal endothelium, such as FECD and BK, stromal replacement is unnecessary unless irreversible scarring is observed in the stroma. This concept led to the development of the first corneal endothelial transplant by Tillett in 1956 [5]. In 1998, Melles and colleagues invented a method of pneumatic graft adhesion named posterior lamellar keratoplasty (PLK), in which the posterior corneal lenticle includes the posterior corneal stroma, Descemet membrane, and endothelium [6]. Terry and colleagues introduced PLK for the first time in the United States and called it deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty (DLEK); in this procedure, the superficial layer of the cornea is removed, and a graft composed of endothelium and stroma is inserted into the anterior chamber [7]. In 2004, Melles and colleagues and Price and colleagues improved this technique and published a report on Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) [8, 9].

The advantage of this technique lies in the development of a method called descemetorhexis, in which the patient’s DM is removed. This descemetorhexis technique improves graft adhesion. Moreover, the anterior stroma is removed by use of a microkeratome during graft preparation in Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK), allowing for the creation of grafts of uniform thickness and clarity [10]. Adhesion of the clean posterior surface of the patient’s cornea to the anterior surface of the graft has resulted in better visual acuity than that obtained with DSEK or PLK. In Japan, a report analyzing the primary diseases and procedures related to corneal transplantation at a single institution over the past 27 years revealed that the percentage of EK increased, to 33.8% [11]. Aphakic BK, pseudophakic BK, or argon laser-induced BK are common causes of BK [2, 12, 13]. The percentage of EK increased to 33.8%, whilst the prevalence of DMEK lagged behind those of Germany and the United States, and DSAEK was mainly used for EK. BK was the primary disease in 34.5% of the patients.

Currently, the postoperative visual acuity achieved by Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), in which only the corneal endothelium and DM are transplanted, without the corneal stroma, is excellent [14]. Compared with DSAEK, DMEK requires a longer learning curve, including aspects such as graft attachment, preparation, and graft unfolding, and offers lower rejection and longer survival time. Because of these advantages, DMEK has become the most commonly chosen EK type in recent years, with the number of DMEK procedures increasing [3, 15].The development of corneal endothelial transplantation has led to a decrease in the number of all-layer corneal transplants. According to a German report, in 2012, more DMEK surgeries were performed than DSAEK surgeries; by 2015, more than 50% of corneal transplants were endothelial transplants [3].

Immune mechanism in endothelial keratoplasty

The cornea, being a nonvascular and nonlymphoid tissue, has a lower likelihood of presenting antigens when compared with other organs. Therefore, no necessity exists for ethnicity, blood type, or human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching. The alloantigen recognition mechanism involves direct and indirect pathways (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Illustration of mechanism for antigen presentations. In the direct pathway, donor dendritic cells resident in the corneal graft migrate to the cervical lymph node and present to clusters of differentiation 4 (CD4) cells. In the indirect pathway, a peptide with donor-derived major histocompatibility complex (MHC) antigens is recognized by host antigen-presenting cells (APCs) to T cells

In the direct pathway, recipient CD4 and CD8 cells resident in cervical lymph nodes recognize intact major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II alloantigens present on the surface of antigen-presenting cells (APCs). In the indirect pathway, organ-derived peptides (typically MHC antigens) drain into the lymph nodes and are recognized by resident APCs. The indirect pathway is considered the predominant pathway in conventional corneal transplantation, whereas in high-risk settings, such as inflamed or vascularized corneas, both the direct and indirect pathways are involved [16].

Anterior chamber-associated immune deviation (ACAID) is a phenomenon in which the systemic immune response is specifically suppressed against antigens that have entered the anterior chamber [17]. CD4+ regulatory T cells are induced by ACAID and have been shown to exert anti-inflammatory effects in autoimmune uveitis and optic neuritis in mouse models [17–19]. Although corneal transplantation has been suggested to be associated with ACAID and has a higher survival rate than other organ transplants, the precise immunologic mechanism is still unclear. However, one case report indicated that splenectomized patients who underwent posterior keratoplasty did not experience graft rejection [20], suggesting that an intact spleen might not be necessary for graft acceptance.

Studies using several mouse models have shown that it is important to prevent recognition of donor tissue or organs as an antigen by the host’s immune system. Replacing allogeneic donor tissue with syngeneic epithelium protects orthotopic allogeneic corneal grafts transplanted into high-risk eyes from sensitization to the recipient, as well as from immune-mediated rejection [21–23]. Reconstitution of BALB/c corneas replaced with an immortalized C3H-CEC cell line in BALB/c mice resulted in no rejection [24].

The allograft rejection rate was further reduced by changing allografts to endothelial transplants. PKP typically has a reported rejection rate of approximately 20%, whereas for EK, the graft survival rate is approximately 7% for DSAEK and 1.5% for DMEK, which is much lower than that for PKP [25, 26].

Types of keratoplasty, indications, and complications

PKP

Indications

The advantage of PKP is that it can be performed regardless of whether the endothelium or stroma is involved. Therefore, PKP is generally indicated for diseases extending from the corneal stroma to the corneal endothelium. PKP is the treatment of choice in cases of keratoconus, acute hydrops, corneal perforation (infected or noninfected), or graft dysfunction after PKP with stromal opacity.

Overall, PKP has been declining among corneal transplants performed by US eye banks between 2015 and 2020 [15]. PKP is the most common option for repeated surgeries [15]. Corneal thinning due to dilatation or keratoconus is the second-most common cause of PKP. A multicenter study in Germany and China reported a similar downward trend in PKP, with PKP for endothelial diseases being largely replaced by EK [3, 27]. In Australia, corneal graft registries have been analyzed; in particular, PKP for FECD has mostly been replaced with EK [28].

Surgery, outcome, and complications

In PKP, the host cornea is removed in a circular shape by use of a vacuum trephine (Fig. 2b). The graft is punched 0.25–0.5 mm larger than the removed cornea and sutured with 10 − 0 nylon, with care taken to avoid induced astigmatism.

A characteristic feature of PKP is its open sky situation during surgery. In the case of cataract surgery, vitrectomy, or EK, the eye is closed, and the shape of the eye and intraocular pressure (IOP) are maintained. In PKP, the eye is in an open sky; thus, increasing the risk of expulsive and choroidal hemorrhage. The operative time should be shortened as much as possible to minimize diversion. A scleral ring is used to maintain the shape of the eye and facilitate surgery. Surgeons must be well trained because of suture-induced astigmatism. Depending on the degree of astigmatism, hard contact lenses may be necessary to achieve good visual acuity [29, 30]. Patients who underwent PKP for BK achieved best-spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) of 0.73–0.43 at 5 years [31]. In keratoconus cases, visual acuity and rejection rates were better than those in BK cases [32].

The most commonly reported postoperative complications are rejection (approximately 20%), postoperative astigmatism, infectious keratitis (approximately 3.0%), and suture-related infections (approximately 1.0%) [31, 33, 34]. Previous studies have reported that up to one-fifth of patients are left with astigmatism of 5 diopters (D) or more [6, 29, 35, 36]. In cases of keratoconus, visual acuity 1-year post-PKP was 20/40 in 91% of instances [37].

EK (DSAEK, DMEK)

DSAEK

Indications

The indications for surgery are similar for both DSAEK and DMEK, being widely performed in cases of endothelial disease without severe scar formation in the stroma. The presence or absence of fibrotic changes in the corneal stroma has been suggested as one of the most important factors affecting visual acuity after DSAEK [38, 39]. Indications include FECD, pseudophakic BK, BK after argon laser iridotomy, failed PKP, post glaucoma surgery, and graft dysfunction after corneal endothelial surgery. Other indications include corneal edema caused by forceps delivery, iridocorneal endothelial (ICE) syndrome, and congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy (CHED) [26]. The advantage of DSAEK over DMEK is that DSAEK grafts are more rigid than DMEK grafts because they contain stroma. Therefore, DSAEK is selected for patients with corneal opacity and poor visibility of the graft in the anterior chamber because it carries a lower risk of the graft being inserted upside down.

Surgery

Donor: The DSAEK graft is prepared using a microkeratome with a 300-, 350-, or 400-µm section. After removal of the anterior part of the cornea, the desired thickness of the posterior donor lenticle is 100 to 150 μm. The size of the trephinations is approximately 8.0 mm.

Patient: The anterior chamber is replaced with air and the DM is removed using a reverse Sinskey hook. The graft is gently inserted into the anterior chamber through the scleral or corneal tunnel by use of forceps (taco-folding method) or an insertion device (Busin glide and forceps, EndoGlide, or NS Endo-Inserter) [25, 40–44]. Air is carefully injected underneath the inserted graft to allow for unfolding and attachment. The tunnel is closed with two or three 10 − 0 nylon sutures (Fig. 2c). The reader should note that the DSEAK procedure described in this section is based on the authors’ preferences and that many other variations exist. There is also a variant called non-Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (nDSAEK), in which the graft is attached without descemetorhexis [45]. Some clinical studies have reported no significant differences in postoperative visual acuity between nDSAEK and DSAEK. The nDSAEK procedure is a simple operation without a DM step, thus representing a useful option for performing EK [39, 45–48].

Outcomes and complications

One systematic review reported that the mean visual acuity (BSCVA) after surgery was 0.293 (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) [49]. Most other reports that have been published regarding the long-term postoperative observation period have reported a value of approximately 0.40 (logMAR) for BSCVA [50–52]. The refractive index changes by approximately + 1.00 D owing to the effect of changes in graft thickness [26, 53–55]. The 5-year endothelial cell loss rate is approximately 50% [40, 56–58]. The loss rate of ECD was greater than that of PKP.

Common complications of EK (graft preparation and surgical procedures) must be discussed separately. The keratome may not properly resect the cornea during graft preparation. In other words, the donor graft may not be resected with a uniform thickness or tears in the middle of the graft. Therefore, carefully positioning of the keratome blade at the end to ensure proper graft preparation is crucial.

In some cases, the descemetorhexis is inadequate. If the DM is adherent to the stroma owing to trauma, it may not detach with a reverse Sinskey hook. If the DM is rubbed too hard, the graft may not adhere to the tissue; thus, the DM is removed with forceps, or a portion of the DM is cut with a shear blade.

One study conducted a 5-year long-term follow-up of the postoperative results of both DSAEK and nDSAEK and reported no statistical difference in visual acuity, SE corneal endothelial cell density, reduction rate, or other relevant parameters between the 2 patient groups, leading to the conclusion that DSAEK produced favorable results [46].

The primary graft failure rate is 0.62–2.7% [28, 59]. Air or gas injected into the anterior chamber for graft attachment migrates to the back of the iris and causes loss of the anterior chamber; rebubbling is required in 0–20% of cases, which is lower than for DMEK [40, 60, 61]. Graft detachment is reported to be 0.7–0.9% and less than 1% [62, 63]. Another meta-analysis study reported a detachment or dislocation rate of 0–13.3%, indicating differing results across studies [25, 49, 64, 65]. The rejection rate is lower than that of PKP and higher than that of DMEK, although primary and secondary graft failures occur [26, 49].

Thus, the postoperative results of DSAEK are between those of PKP and DMEK, and DSAEK is sometimes recommended in EK where DMEK is not feasible [66, 67], making it an important technique despite its decreasing use.

New DSAEK technique

Reports from various countries have shown that DMEK cases are increasing in EK [3, 27]. The advantage of DSAEK is that it is rigid because of the tissue containing stroma, resulting in a reduced risk of backside insertion when compared with DMEK. The DSAEK technique has evolved to provide good and stable postoperative vision.

Busin and colleagues reported an ultrathin DSAEK (UT-DSAEK) with the thinnest possible stroma because the endothelium retains functions important for maintaining corneal transparency [68]. The UT-DSAEK is a 100-µm graft, whereas the conventional graft is approximately 200 μm, and it shortens the time of visual improvement and improves the best visual acuity when compared with DSAEK. The hyperopic shift due to increased corneal thickness can also be reduced to approximately 0.78 D [68].

The standard procedure is to prepare the donor cornea using a microkeratome; however, femtosecond laser ablation has also been reported [69]. The advantage of using a femtosecond laser is that the graft can be fabricated with any thickness. Several studies have reported poorer visual outcomes after femtosecond laser-assisted DSEK than after microkeratome-assisted DSAEK [69]. Recent studies have shown that a new generation of femtosecond lasers, using lower pulse energies and tighter spots, can enable smoother stromal interfaces [70, 71].

The graft insertion technique has also been developed. Although EK has many advantages for endothelial dysfunction, endothelial cell (EC) loss is greater than that in PKP [42, 72–74]. Mechanical injury during surgery is a major cause of postoperative EC loss. An NS Endo-Inserter (Hoya) is a useful option for reducing the traction stress on the endothelium [42]. Soma and colleagues reported that the device differs from the pull-through technique in that the graft is rolled and inserted into the anterior chamber with a balanced salt solution (BSS) flow [42, 75]. The device has a platform to attach the graft to the end of the polypropylene body and a movable polypropylene cartridge attached to a conduit with a silicone rubber valve. Before use, a 2.5-mL syringe filled with BSS is connected to the tip of the inserter body. Moreover, this device needs a 4.6-mm scleral wound to insert the graft, which is smaller than that required for DSAEK. The major advantage of this device is the lack of mechanical traction stress compared to the Busin Glide, which inserts a 1-step graft. However, to date only the NS endo-inserter has been available in Japan. Soma and colleagues reported predominantly less ECD loss at the 6-month follow-up after DSAEK [42]. Combining this device with a frown incision represents another useful technique for reducing the size of the incision [76].

DMEK

Indication

Compared with DSAEK, DMEK has the advantages of shorter postoperative recovery time, lower rejection rate, and smaller postoperative refractive error change [25, 77, 78]. The indications are the same as those for DSAEK; however, DMEK is considered more cost-effective than DSAEK and is preferred [79].

However, in patients with complex situations such as large iris defects due to large iridectomy (postglaucoma surgery), the existence of a tube shunt for complex glaucoma, a remarkably deep anterior chamber due to high myopia, or postvitrectomy and post-PKP, DMEK is challenging to complete in terms of unfolding or risk of the graft dropping into the vitreous cavity. Thus, the DSAEK is sometimes recommended for difficult situations.

Patients undergoing iridectomy face a risk of the graft falling into the vitreous cavity. Nine eyes that underwent DMEK for aphakia were analyzed, and only 1 eye was reported to be alive at the last follow-up [80]. The authors concluded that DMEK is not recommended for patients with iris defects or aphakia [80]. Once the DMEK graft is dropped, a vitrectomy is required to pull it up, and rescue becomes difficult once it becomes entangled in the vitreous. Second, postglaucoma surgery and/or tube shunt insertion are difficult to perform because the IOP does not increase, potentially causing graft detachment. This is a common difficulty encountered in EK.

For successful unfolding of the DMEK graft, a shallow anterior chamber is required, with the graft positioned between the iris and the cornea. In cases of a significantly deep or vitrectomized anterior chamber, achieving a shallow chamber becomes challenging, making graft deployment difficult. According to a previous report on clinical outcomes of DMEK, 65% of intraoperative complications occurred within the 20 cases that involved vitrectomy, and another 10% of patients showed iatrogenic primary graft failure [66].

In DMEK after PKP, a gap exists between the PKP graft and the host corneal edge of the posterior corneal surface, and the irregularity of the posterior corneal surface also increases the risk of graft detachment [81, 82]. Graft detachment can occur in up to 50% of cases, and it happens with considerable ease [81].

Surgery

DMEK grafts were prepared by the surgeon by use of a peeling technique with stained 0.1% Brilliant Blue G or Trypan blue dye [14, 83, 84]. Alternatively, prestripped donor tissues or preloaded grafts could be used [85]. The peeled DMEK graft was loaded into an IOL inserter or glass pipette [86, 87]. The donor tissue was punched for the estimated size (approximately 8.0 mm). After removal of the host’s DM (descemetorhexis) under air infusion, a DMEK graft was implanted into the anterior chamber through a 2.2–2.8 mm corneoscleral tunnel. Subsequently, it was unfolded and fixed by use of 20% SF6 gas. Peripheral iridectomy (PI) was performed at the 6-o’clock position by use of a 25-gauge vitreous cutter. PI can be performed preoperatively by use of an argon laser. Notably, the above-mentioned techniques are similar to DSAEK and vary between surgeons.

Outcome and complications

Postoperative visual acuity was better with DMEK than with PKP or DSAEK [25, 49]. Owing to the simple replacement of the thin DM, post-DMEK eyes looked like eyes after cataract surgery (Fig. 4, left). Careful inspection of the corneal periphery revealed a boundary between the removed DM and graft (Figs. 2d and 4, right). Postoperative visual acuity was between 0.08 and 0.3 (logMAR) [49, 78, 88].

Fig. 4 Anterior segment photograph after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. a The transparency of the cornea is remarkably high. b The border between the host endothelium (arrowhead) and the graft (arrow) is visible under high magnification

Owing to the difficulty of unfolding and confirming the correct orientation, the learning curve until technical stabilization was steeper than that of DSAEK [87–90]. The learning curve for DMEK is severe, requiring experience of approximately 50 cases. With increased DMEK experience, the graft unfolding time decreases, and the decline in ECD lessens [91, 92]. ECD loss rate 5 years after DMEK surgery ranged from − 35% to -80% [31]. However, at 24 months postoperatively, the ECD loss in the DSAEK and DMEK groups seemed to stabilize. Following PKP, ECD continuously decreased [93]. The postoperative graft detachment occurs more frequently with DMEK than with DSAEK [40, 49, 60]. Rebubbling is necessary if the graft becomes detached. Reports exist of cases where the graft is inserted upside-down, although such instances are infrequent. The rate of reverse fixation was approximately 0–18% for DMEK [94, 95]. The primary graft failure was 12.6%, which was higher than that after DSAEK and DSEK (5.7% and 2.7%, respectively) [28].

A meta-analysis comparing DSAEK and DMEK revealed a lower incidence of rejection worldwide for DMEK: the rates were approximately 1.5% for DMEK and 5% for DSAEK [96]. Some reports support or reject lifetime steroid use [96–99]. Follow-ups should be performed with attention paid to the increase in IOP caused by topical steroid eye drops.

However, postoperative graft detachment is more likely to occur with this procedure than with DSAEK [25, 96]. In some cases, when primary PKP grafts fail, DSAEK or DMEK procedures are selected to replace the failed endothelium instead of another PKP being performed. One systematic review reported that patients who underwent DMEK after failed PKP achieved better vision than those who underwent DSAEK [65].

Glaucoma, one of the main complications, was followed until the 36th month, with an incidence of 18.8% for glaucoma and of 12.9% for glaucoma secondary to steroids [100]. The other major complication is postoperative cystoid macular edema (CME) [101, 102], although the detailed mechanism is unknown. Even if EK surgery is completed without complications, the appearance of CME causes a significant loss of vision [103]. The incidence of CME after DSAEK ranges from 7 to 11% [101, 104, 105]. The incidence of CME was 13% in DMEK patients with triple DMEK and DMEK alone, with no difference in the incidence of CME. The presence of iris pigment cells was investigated; however, no association was observed between iris color and CME [106, 107]. We reported a CME incidence of 15.6% in a multicenter study, with the degree of iris damage, air volume, and air reinjection as risk factors [103].

The severity of iris damage directly correlates with the likelihood of development of posterior iris synechiae [108]. In 1988, Sawa and colleagues reported a method for measuring protein concentration using a laser flare-cell photometer to evaluate flare intensity and the number of cells in the anterior chamber, which is commonly used because of its high reproducibility and noninvasive nature [109, 110]. Noting that inflammation is induced after ocular surgery, a detailed analysis showed changes in cytokine levels after DMEK. Multiplex bead immunoassay revealed that DMEK was associated with a decrease in the number of cytokines in the anterior chamber [111]. Multiplex beads immunoassay results showed that the DMEK group exhibited significantly lower concentrations of several proinflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-1beta (IL-1β), IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, and IL-8 and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor than those of the BK group. Moreover, the levels of IL-1β and IL-5 were significantly lower in the DMEK group than in the control group. These results indicated that the normal corneal endothelium may play a role in normalizing the environment in the anterior chamber by functioning as a pump (Fig. 5) [111].

Fig. 5 Illustration of the anterior chamber environment before and after DMEK. Before DMEK surgery, the concentration of inflammatory cytokines is high. After DMEK, the anterior chamber environment normalizes owing to the pump mechanism of the corneal endothelium. DMEK Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty

Confocal microscopy revealed that the corneal nerve is reduced in EK despite being remarkably small. However, the cornea regenerates relatively early postoperatively and does not become hypersensitive. However, the fact that the corneal nerve density did not return to normal 2 years after surgery suggests that some morphologic changes may have occurred (Fig. 5) [112].

New DMEK technique

Recently, various techniques have been reported for stabilizing graft unfolding. In general, the standard technique for DMEK is to make the anterior chamber shallow and insert the graft between the iris and cornea, where the graft is unfolded by water flow. In vitrectomized cases, the anterior chamber cannot be made shallower because of the loss of elasticity of the vitreous body. Moreover, if the iris is severely damaged by trauma and/or glaucoma surgery (iridectomy) or if the iris is fixed by mydriasis, the graft might drop into the vitreous cavity. Techniques to prevent graft drops in aphakic eyes have also been reported. A technique named the safety-net suture was introduced by Berger and colleagues to prevent graft drop in eyes with aphakia and a large iris defect [113]. In this technique, continuous double-armed 10 − 0 polypropylene sutures were placed in a grid pattern in 3 to 5 horizontal and vertical passes across the full width of the cornea (Fig. 6). The safety-net suture creates a net and forms a temporary barrier, thus reducing the risk of DMEK graft drop with posterior dislocation. The authors performed this technique in 3 patients and concluded that it was a simple and cost-effective solution for preventing graft drop. However, a disadvantage of this technique is the need for secondary pupilloplasty and postoperative iris contact lens wear.

Fig. 6 Illustration of Descemet stripping only. The Descemet membrane is stripped using a reverse Sinskey hook of 4.0 mm in diameter

Conventionally, DSAEK is recommended for vitrectomy or severe iris damage. However, owing to its superiority, techniques have been developed to perform DMEK in difficult cases. Our group previously reported the double-bubble technique [114]. This unfolding technique was used for DMEK during vitrectomy. The technique involves injecting 0.02 mL of gas inside the roll of the graft and then inserting additional gas underneath the graft. The graft is unfolded by holding it between the gas, and the unfolding time was 10.1 min.

Furthermore, determining the correct orientation of the graft inserted into the anterior chamber poses a challenge. We also reported a technique for preventing reverse unfolding [115]. BK is a common indication for EK in Japan [116], as are the causative diseases of DMEK. Along with our research team, Kobayashi and colleagues have also reported on various techniques for improving graft visibility using chandelier illumination [117, 118]. Recently, optical coherence tomography (OCT) has been connected to an operating microscope, making it possible to confirm the orientation of graft roles in real-time during surgery [119].

Descemet stripping only/Descemet membrane without keratoplasty

Recently, with the development of DMEK, even early cases of postoperative FECD have been treated with DMEK when photophobia is severe. In FECD, cystic corneal endothelial cells are observed as guttae, which cause visual loss owing to their diffuse reflections. Because some corneal endothelial cells with normal function are present in patients with FECD, an alternative treatment to transplantation was reported by Kaufman and colleagues in 2018 [120].

Descemet stripping only (DSO) or Descemet membrane without keratoplasty (DWEK) is performed to remove the endothelium of the cornea from the DM in patients with FECD and photophobia. The procedure is performed to improve the symptoms through the migration and expansion of the surrounding normal corneal endothelial cells. The most significant feature of this surgery is the rejection rate of 0%. The risk of secondary glaucoma is greatly reduced without the need for long-term steroid use, which is important after transplantation. The 5-year follow-up results have been positive, and topical use of ripasudil hydrochloride hydrate (Y-27,632) has been reported to promote corneal endothelial cell proliferation [121].

Indications

The cornea must maintain its function through the migration and expansion of endothelial cells. FECD, with adequate endothelial function, is the most suitable disease for DSO [122]. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used by Moloney and colleagues [121] are summarized as follows:

Inclusion criteria

Grade on Krachmer grading 2–4 with FECD.

Clear peripheral endothelial cell count > 1000 cells/mm2 on confocal or specular microscopy.

Visual acuity reduction of Snellen BSCVA less than 6/6 or caused by guttae rather than corneal edema.

Photophobia affecting driving.

Age 18 years and over.

Visual symptoms due to guttae, not cataracts or corneal stromal edema.

Exclusion criteria

Advanced corneal stromal edema defined as the presence of haze, bullae, or DM folds on slit-lamp biomicroscopy.

Peripheral endothelial cell count of < 1000 cells/mm2.

Presence of secondary corneal pathology such as infective or autoimmune keratitis.

History of herpes simplex virus or cytomegalovirus keratitis.

Pregnancy.

Surgery

In a previous study, DSO was performed at 6 mm; however, corneal transparency was not recovered completely [97]. Removing the DM at a 4.00-mm diameter is now widely documented (Fig. 6). If the cornea does not regain function for several months after surgery, an EK is performed. Under topical anesthesia, a 4.00-mm descemetorhexis is conducted in the central area with the aid of viscoelastic material, using either a reverse Sinskey hook or a Fogla DM stripping hook. Care should be taken when peeling to prevent expansion of the peeled area.

Complications

The primary focus of observation is prolonged corneal edema. If the edema does not improve over several months, EK should be considered before fibrotic changes occur in the stroma [123, 124]. In other instances of DM detachment, air injection might prove effective. Caution should be exercised because intense abrasion of the posterior surface of the cornea may cause scarring in the posterior stroma.

Future treatment

Corneal transplantation has made great progress by improving postoperative visual acuity and decreasing the incidence of rejection. However, we encounter severe cases that require repeated corneal endothelial transplantation after glaucoma surgery or because of cytomegalovirus-induced corneal endotheliitis. Repeated use of endothelial grafts shortens graft survival. In response to this situation, several alternatives are being developed that represent a significant change from previous concepts.

The first is the injection of cultured corneal endothelium. Until now, a sheet graft containing the corneal endothelium, DM, or stroma has been inserted into the anterior chamber, as described by Kinoshita and colleagues [125]. Patients undergo ablation of diseased corneal endothelial cells, as in the DSO procedure, in which an 8.00-mm area is abraded; corneal endothelial cells are cultured ex vivo, injected, and maintained in the supine position for successful implantation. Although this is a new technique, good results have been reported 5 years postoperatively. Unlike in conventional endothelial transplantation, the patient is placed in the supine position for cell adhesion. Furthermore, the incision is 1.6 mm, which is exceedingly small. One problem is the need for healthy, relatively young human corneal endothelium for culture. The second method is corneal endothelial transplantation using embryonic stem (ES)/induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, as reported by Hatou and colleagues [126, 127]. Unlike the report by Kinoshita and colleagues, endothelium differentiated and cultured from iPS cells has the advantage of reduced susceptibility to rejection and does not require a donor [126]. Currently, successful induction of corneal endothelial cell differentiation from iPS cells is limited to experimental animal models, and clinical application is anticipated. The potential clinical application carries numerous benefits, such as shortening of the waiting period before transplantation and reduction of rejection rates.

Various methods have been explored to address recurrent rejections with artificial interventions. Recently, clinical use of artificial corneal endothelium (EndoArt; EyeYon Medical) has gained traction [128]. These grafts have a dome-shaped structure, 50-µm thickness, and diameter of 6.0 mm. Artificial corneal endothelium, composed of a flexible, hydrophilic-acrylic material, has replaced corneal endothelial disease. Evaporation of the epithelium and reduced aqueous humor inflow into the central stroma ultimately reduce edema and restore corneal homeostasis. The surgical technique closely resembles that of DMEK, with a notable emphasis on ensuring secure attachment to the posterior corneal surface owing to its nonbiologic nature. The authors report that in 2 patients with a preoperative corneal thickness of over 700 μm, the corneal thickness could be reduced and kept to approximately 500 μm after 1 year of postoperative observation. The possibility of substituting an artificial material would be beneficial for these patients because ECD loss progresses owing to the deterioration of the anterior chamber environment, such as elevated inflammatory cytokines [111]. As the number of reported cases is limited, further studies are required.

Discussion

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the history, indications, techniques, and prospects of corneal endothelial transplantation.

Although endothelial transplantation is a relatively new technique, several reports have already been published comparing DSAEK and DMEK, with DMEK typically reported as better in terms of rejection rate and postoperative visual acuity [25, 52, 60, 129]. Both also have good postoperative outcomes; however, the accumulation of surgical data underscores the existence of difficult cases for which careful consideration is essential when deciding whether to perform endothelial transplantation, particularly when considering DMEK. The general consensus is that patients with unstable anterior chambers require careful consideration and that other surgical options should also be considered. Recently, techniques have made it possible to perform endothelial transplantation in difficult cases, and the range of indications for endothelial transplantation has expanded. The number of DMEK cases continues to increase worldwide.

More than 20 years have passed since the development of the DMEK technique, and its postoperative course is stable. Moreover, an assessment encompassed both general and intricate aspects, including evaluations of grafts, visual function, the frequency of glaucoma, and changes in corneal shape. Glaucoma represents one of the major complications. In an analysis of 90 DMEK cases, elevated IOP and pseudoexfoliation syndrome were reported as a risk factor in 21% of the patients [130]. Corneal transparency showed a remarkable improvement, and the visual outcome was favorable. Nevertheless, the assessment of corneal higher-order aberrations indicated a deterioration, notably in the posterior cornea, where the central region exhibited anterior protrusion (Fig. 5) [131]. This observation suggests that the cornea goes through a process of normalization and structural alterations [131–133].

Furthermore, the success of DMEK in difficult cases—such as those with iridocorneal endothelial syndrome following PKP and tube shunts after glaucoma surgery—is key to its future as a preferred treatment option [100, 134, 135]. Because of good surgical results, the development of this method is now moving toward simplification of the procedure. In conjunction with modern technology, attempts have been made to predict graft detachment after DMEK using artificial intelligence [128, 136].

The use of new technologies could solve the shortage of donor organs. The mechanism of the artificial endothelium (EndoArt) involves blocking contact with the aqueous humor. The strengths of this surgery include the lack of long-term steroid use to prevent rejection [128].

Cell injection therapy using corneal endothelial cells derived from iPS or cultured cells supplies donor cells and is reproducible, eliminating the need for complex DMEK unfolding techniques. However, the requirements of regenerative medicine should be considered in terms of the regulations and costs.

The field of endothelial corneal transplantation has great potential for future advances, with continued growth expected to improve visual acuity and reduce the need for repeated transplantations.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

T. Shimizu, None; S. Yamagami, None; T. Hayashi, None.

Organizer: Mitsuru Sawa, MD

Corresponding Author: Takahiko Hayashi

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Ono T Ishiyama S Hayashidera T Mori Y Nejima R Miyata K Twelve-year follow-up of penetrating keratoplasty Jpn J Ophthalmol 2017 61 131 6 10.1007/s10384-016-0489-2 27885526
Ono T, Ishiyama S, Hayashidera T, Mori Y, Nejima R, Miyata K, et al. Twelve-year follow-up of penetrating keratoplasty. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2017;61:131–6.27885526
2. Shimazaki J Amano S Uno T Maeda N Yokoi N Japan Bullous Keratopathy Study Group. National survey on bullous keratopathy in Japan Cornea 2007 26 274 8 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31802c9e19 17413952
Shimazaki J, Amano S, Uno T, Maeda N, Yokoi N. Japan Bullous Keratopathy Study Group. National survey on bullous keratopathy in Japan. Cornea. 2007;26:274–8.17413952
3. Flockerzi E Maier P Böhringer D Reinshagen H Kruse F Cursiefen C Trends in corneal transplantation from 2001 to 2016 in Germany: a report of the DOG-section cornea and its Keratoplasty registry Am J Ophthalmol 2018 188 91 8 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.01.018 29410297
Flockerzi E, Maier P, Böhringer D, Reinshagen H, Kruse F, Cursiefen C, et al. Trends in corneal transplantation from 2001 to 2016 in Germany: a report of the DOG-section cornea and its Keratoplasty registry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;188:91–8.29410297
4. Armitage WJ Tullo AB Larkin DFP The first successful full-thickness corneal transplant: a commentary on Eduard Zirm’s landmark paper of 1906 Br J Ophthalmol 2006 90 1222 3 10.1136/bjo.2006.101527 16980643
Armitage WJ, Tullo AB, Larkin DFP. The first successful full-thickness corneal transplant: a commentary on Eduard Zirm’s landmark paper of 1906. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90:1222–3.16980643
5. Tillett CW Posterior lamellar keratoplasty Am J Ophthalmol 1956 41 530 3 10.1016/0002-9394(56)91269-7 13302358
Tillett CW. Posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1956;41:530–3.13302358
6. Melles GR Eggink FA Lander F Pels E Rietveld FJ Beekhuis WH A surgical technique for posterior lamellar keratoplasty Cornea 1998 17 618 26 10.1097/00003226-199811000-00010 9820943
Melles GR, Eggink FA, Lander F, Pels E, Rietveld FJ, Beekhuis WH, et al. A surgical technique for posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Cornea. 1998;17:618–26.9820943
7. Terry MA, Ousley PJ. Deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty in the first United States patients early clinical results. 2001.
8. Price FW Price MO Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 200 eyes: early challenges and techniques to enhance donor adherence J Cataract Refract Surg 2006 32 411 8 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.12.078 16631048
Price FW, Price MO. Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 200 eyes: early challenges and techniques to enhance donor adherence. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:411–8.16631048
9. Melles GRJ Kamminga N Techniques for posterior lamellar keratoplasty through a scleral incision Ophthalmologe 2003 100 689 95 10.1007/s00347-003-0891-2 14504892
Melles GRJ, Kamminga N. Techniques for posterior lamellar keratoplasty through a scleral incision. Ophthalmologe. 2003;100:689–95.14504892
10. Gorovoy MS Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2006 25 886 9 10.1097/01.ico.0000214224.90743.01 17102661
Gorovoy MS. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2006;25:886–9.17102661
11. Takahashi A Yamaguchi T Tomida D Nishisako S Sasaki C Shimazaki J Trends in surgical procedures and indications for corneal transplantation over 27 years in a tertiary hospital in Japan Jpn J Ophthalmol 2021 65 608 15 10.1007/s10384-021-00849-1 34216283
Takahashi A, Yamaguchi T, Tomida D, Nishisako S, Sasaki C, Shimazaki J. Trends in surgical procedures and indications for corneal transplantation over 27 years in a tertiary hospital in Japan. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2021;65:608–15.34216283
12. Imai K Sawada H Hatase T Fukuchi T Iridocorneal contact as a potential cause of corneal decompensation following laser peripheral iridotomy Jpn J Ophthalmol 2021 65 460 71 10.1007/s10384-021-00830-y 33728544
Imai K, Sawada H, Hatase T, Fukuchi T. Iridocorneal contact as a potential cause of corneal decompensation following laser peripheral iridotomy. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2021;65:460–71.33728544
13. Ang LPK Higashihara H Sotozono C Shanmuganathan VA Dua H Tan DTH Argon laser iridotomy-induced bullous keratopathy a growing problem in Japan Br J Ophthalmol 2007 91 1613 5 10.1136/bjo.2007.120261 17567658
Ang LPK, Higashihara H, Sotozono C, Shanmuganathan VA, Dua H, Tan DTH, et al. Argon laser iridotomy-induced bullous keratopathy a growing problem in Japan. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:1613–5.17567658
14. Melles GRJ Ong TS Ververs B van der Wees J Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) Cornea 2006 25 987 90 17102683
Melles GRJ, Ong TS, Ververs B, van der Wees J. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea. 2006;25:987–90.17102683
15. Xiao G Tsou BC Soiberman US Prescott CR Srikumaran D Woreta FA Keratoplasty in the United States: Trends and indications from 2015 to 2020 Cornea 2023 42 1360 4 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003180 36730420
Xiao G, Tsou BC, Soiberman US, Prescott CR, Srikumaran D, Woreta FA. Keratoplasty in the United States: Trends and indications from 2015 to 2020. Cornea. 2023;42:1360–4.36730420
16. Huq S Liu Y Benichou G Dana MR Relevance of the direct pathway of sensitization in corneal transplantation is dictated by the graft bed microenvironment J Immunol 2004 173 4464 9 10.4049/jimmunol.173.7.4464 15383577
Huq S, Liu Y, Benichou G, Dana MR. Relevance of the direct pathway of sensitization in corneal transplantation is dictated by the graft bed microenvironment. J Immunol. 2004;173:4464–9.15383577
17. Yamada J Ueno M Toda M Shinomiya K Sotozono C Kinoshita S Allogeneic sensitization and tolerance induction after corneal endothelial cell transplantation in mice Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016 57 4572 80 10.1167/iovs.15-19020 27603721
Yamada J, Ueno M, Toda M, Shinomiya K, Sotozono C, Kinoshita S, et al. Allogeneic sensitization and tolerance induction after corneal endothelial cell transplantation in mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:4572–80.27603721
18. Hori J Mechanisms of immune privilege in the anterior segment of the eye: what we learn from corneal transplantation J Ocul Biol Dis Infor 2008 1 94 100 10.1007/s12177-008-9010-6 20072639
Hori J. Mechanisms of immune privilege in the anterior segment of the eye: what we learn from corneal transplantation. J Ocul Biol Dis Infor. 2008;1:94–100.20072639
19. Hori J Yamaguchi T Keino H Hamrah P Maruyama K Immune privilege in corneal transplantation Prog Retin Eye Res 2019 72 100758 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.04.002 31014973
Hori J, Yamaguchi T, Keino H, Hamrah P, Maruyama K. Immune privilege in corneal transplantation. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019;72:100758.31014973
20. Hos D, Schaub F, Cursiefen C. Does anterior chamber-associated immune deviation (ACAID) play a role in posterior lamellar keratoplasty? Case report of a splenectomized patient. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19.
21. Hori J Streilein JW Survival in high-risk eyes of epithelium-deprived orthotopic corneal allografts reconstituted in vitro with syngeneic epithelium Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003 44 658 64 10.1167/iovs.02-0399 12556396
Hori J, Streilein JW. Survival in high-risk eyes of epithelium-deprived orthotopic corneal allografts reconstituted in vitro with syngeneic epithelium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:658–64.12556396
22. Hori J Joyce NC Streilein JW Immune privilege and immunogenicity reside among different layers of the mouse cornea Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000 41 3032 42 10967061
Hori J, Joyce NC, Streilein JW. Immune privilege and immunogenicity reside among different layers of the mouse cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:3032–42.10967061
23. Hori J Streilein JW Role of recipient epithelium in promoting survival of orthotopic corneal allografts in mice Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001 42 720 6 11222533
Hori J, Streilein JW. Role of recipient epithelium in promoting survival of orthotopic corneal allografts in mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:720–6.11222533
24. Hayashi T Yamagami S Tanaka K Yokoo S Usui T Amano S Immunologic mechanisms of corneal allografts reconstituted from cultured allogeneic endothelial cells in an immune-privileged site Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009 50 3151 8 10.1167/iovs.08-2530 19255161
Hayashi T, Yamagami S, Tanaka K, Yokoo S, Usui T, Amano S, et al. Immunologic mechanisms of corneal allografts reconstituted from cultured allogeneic endothelial cells in an immune-privileged site. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:3151–8.19255161
25. Marques RE Guerra PS Sousa DC Gonçalves AI Quintas AM Rodrigues W DMEK versus DSAEK for Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy: a meta-analysis Eur J Ophthalmol 2019 29 15 22 10.1177/1120672118757431 29661044
Marques RE, Guerra PS, Sousa DC, Gonçalves AI, Quintas AM, Rodrigues W. DMEK versus DSAEK for Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy: a meta-analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019;29:15–22.29661044
26. Hos D Matthaei M Bock F Maruyama K Notara M Clahsen T Immune reactions after modern lamellar (DALK, DSAEK, DMEK) versus conventional penetrating corneal transplantation Prog Retin Eye Res 2019 73 100768 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.07.001 31279005
Hos D, Matthaei M, Bock F, Maruyama K, Notara M, Clahsen T, et al. Immune reactions after modern lamellar (DALK, DSAEK, DMEK) versus conventional penetrating corneal transplantation. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019;73:100768.31279005
27. Gao H Huang T Pan Z Wu J Xu J Hong J Survey report on keratoplasty in China: a 5-year review from 2014 to 2018 PLoS ONE 2020 15 e0239939 10.1371/journal.pone.0239939 33057425
Gao H, Huang T, Pan Z, Wu J, Xu J, Hong J, et al. Survey report on keratoplasty in China: a 5-year review from 2014 to 2018. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0239939.33057425
28. Coster DJ Lowe MT Keane MC Williams KA A comparison of lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty outcomes: a registry study Ophthalmology 2014 121 979 87 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.12.017 24491643
Coster DJ, Lowe MT, Keane MC, Williams KA. A comparison of lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty outcomes: a registry study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:979–87.24491643
29. Swinger CA Postoperative astigmatism Surv Ophthalmol 1987 31 219 48 10.1016/0039-6257(87)90023-3 3554571
Swinger CA. Postoperative astigmatism. Surv Ophthalmol. 1987;31:219–48.3554571
30. Smiddy WE Horowitz TH Stark WJ Klein P Kracher GP Maumenee AE Potential acuity meter for predicting postoperative visual acuity in penetrating keratoplasty. A new method using a hard contact lens Ophthalmology 1987 94 12 6 10.1016/S0161-6420(87)33511-0 3550564
Smiddy WE, Horowitz TH, Stark WJ, Klein P, Kracher GP, Maumenee AE. Potential acuity meter for predicting postoperative visual acuity in penetrating keratoplasty. A new method using a hard contact lens. Ophthalmology. 1987;94:12–6.3550564
31. Lemaitre D Tourabaly M Borderie V Dechartres A Long-term outcomes after lamellar endothelial keratoplasty compared with penetrating keratoplasty for corneal endothelial dysfunction: a systematic review Cornea 2023 42 917 28 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003240 37185592
Lemaitre D, Tourabaly M, Borderie V, Dechartres A. Long-term outcomes after lamellar endothelial keratoplasty compared with penetrating keratoplasty for corneal endothelial dysfunction: a systematic review. Cornea. 2023;42:917–28.37185592
32. Inoue K Amano S Oshika T Sawa M Tsuru T A 10-Year review of penetrating Keratoplasty Jpn J Ophthalmol 2000 44 139 45 10.1016/S0021-5155(99)00190-2 10715380
Inoue K, Amano S, Oshika T, Sawa M, Tsuru T. A 10-Year review of penetrating Keratoplasty. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2000;44:139–45.10715380
33. Thompson RW Price MO Bowers PJ Price FW Long-term graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty Ophthalmology 2003 110 1396 402 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00463-9 12867398
Thompson RW, Price MO, Bowers PJ, Price FW. Long-term graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1396–402.12867398
34. Reimer A Langenbucher A Cursiefen C Long-term outcome after penetrating keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy - influence of preoperative visual acuity on final outcome Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2012 229 149 57 10.1055/s-0031-1281760 22095151
Reimer A, Langenbucher A, Cursiefen C. Long-term outcome after penetrating keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy - influence of preoperative visual acuity on final outcome. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2012;229:149–57.22095151
35. Deshmukh R Nair S Vaddavalli PK Agrawal T Rapuano CJ Beltz J Post-penetrating keratoplasty astigmatism Surv Ophthalmol 2022 67 1200 28 10.1016/j.survophthal.2021.11.005 34808143
Deshmukh R, Nair S, Vaddavalli PK, Agrawal T, Rapuano CJ, Beltz J, et al. Post-penetrating keratoplasty astigmatism. Surv Ophthalmol. 2022;67:1200–28.34808143
36. Girard LJ Corneal compression sutures for the reduction of astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty Am J Ophthalmol 1989 108 614 10.1016/0002-9394(89)90455-8 2683795
Girard LJ. Corneal compression sutures for the reduction of astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:614.2683795
37. Price FW Whitson WE Marks RG Progression of visual acuity after penetrating keratoplasty Ophthalmology 1991 98 1177 85 10.1016/S0161-6420(91)32136-5 1923353
Price FW, Whitson WE, Marks RG. Progression of visual acuity after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:1177–85.1923353
38. Amano S Setogawa A Inoue K Evaluation of factors affecting visual acuity after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Jpn J Ophthalmol 2017 61 137 41 10.1007/s10384-016-0491-8 27943090
Amano S, Setogawa A, Inoue K. Evaluation of factors affecting visual acuity after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2017;61:137–41.27943090
39. Kobayashi A Yokogawa H Sugiyama K In vivo laser confocal microscopy after Non-descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Ophthalmology 2009 116 1306 13 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.053 19576498
Kobayashi A, Yokogawa H, Sugiyama K. In vivo laser confocal microscopy after Non-descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1306–13.19576498
40. Tourtas T Laaser K Bachmann BO Cursiefen C Kruse FE Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Am J Ophthalmol 2012 153 1082 e10902 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.12.012 22397955
Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:1082–e10902.22397955
41. Mehta JS Por YM Poh R Beuerman RW Tan D Comparison of donor insertion techniques for descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Arch Ophthalmol 2008 126 1383 8 10.1001/archopht.126.10.1383 18852416
Mehta JS, Por YM, Poh R, Beuerman RW, Tan D. Comparison of donor insertion techniques for descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:1383–8.18852416
42. Soma T Koh S Oie Y Maruyama K Tsujikawa M Kawasaki S Clinical evaluation of a newly developed graft inserter (NS Endo-Inserter) for Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Clin Ophthalmol 2019 13 43 8 10.2147/OPTH.S182628 30613132
Soma T, Koh S, Oie Y, Maruyama K, Tsujikawa M, Kawasaki S, et al. Clinical evaluation of a newly developed graft inserter (NS Endo-Inserter) for Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:43–8.30613132
43. Balidis M, Konidaris VE, Ioannidis G, Boboridis K. Descemet’s stripping endothelial automated keratoplasty using Tan EndoGlide endothelium insertion system. Transplant Proc. 2012;44:2759–64.
44. Busin M Bhatt PR Scorcia V A modified technique for Descemet membrane stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty to minimize endothelial cell loss Arch Ophthalmol 2008 126 1133 7 10.1001/archopht.126.8.1133 18695109
Busin M, Bhatt PR, Scorcia V. A modified technique for Descemet membrane stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty to minimize endothelial cell loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:1133–7.18695109
45. Kobayashi A Yokogawa H Sugiyama K Non-descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for endothelial dysfunction secondary to argon laser iridotomy Am J Ophthalmol 2008 146 543 9 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.05.028 18614137
Kobayashi A, Yokogawa H, Sugiyama K. Non-descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for endothelial dysfunction secondary to argon laser iridotomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146:543–9.18614137
46. Yamazaki R Nejima R Ichihashi Y Miyata K Tsubota K Shimmura S Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) versus non-descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (nDSAEK) for bullous keratopathy Jpn J Ophthalmol 2020 64 585 90 10.1007/s10384-020-00767-8 32880043
Yamazaki R, Nejima R, Ichihashi Y, Miyata K, Tsubota K, Shimmura S. Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) versus non-descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (nDSAEK) for bullous keratopathy. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2020;64:585–90.32880043
47. Nottage JM Nirankari VS Endothelial keratoplasty without Descemet’s stripping in eyes with previous penetrating corneal transplants Br J Ophthalmol 2012 96 24 7 10.1136/bjo.2010.199794 21486739
Nottage JM, Nirankari VS. Endothelial keratoplasty without Descemet’s stripping in eyes with previous penetrating corneal transplants. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:24–7.21486739
48. Heitor De Paula F Kamyar R Shtein RM Sugar A Mian SI Endothelial keratoplasty without Descemet stripping after failed penetrating keratoplasty Cornea 2012 31 645 8 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823f8c59 22391580
Heitor De Paula F, Kamyar R, Shtein RM, Sugar A, Mian SI. Endothelial keratoplasty without Descemet stripping after failed penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2012;31:645–8.22391580
49. Singh A Zarei-Ghanavati M Avadhanam V Liu C Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty/Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2017 36 1437 43 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001320 28834814
Singh A, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Avadhanam V, Liu C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty/Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2017;36:1437–43.28834814
50. Fuest M Ang M Htoon HM Tan D Mehta JS Long-term visual outcomes comparing Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty Am J Ophthalmol 2017 182 62 71 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.07.014 28739420
Fuest M, Ang M, Htoon HM, Tan D, Mehta JS. Long-term visual outcomes comparing Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;182:62–71.28739420
51. Ishiyama S Mori Y Nejima R Tokudome T Shimmura S Miyata K Comparison of long-term outcomes of visual function and endothelial cell survival after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty using mixed-effects models Cornea 2016 35 1526 32 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001003 27560035
Ishiyama S, Mori Y, Nejima R, Tokudome T, Shimmura S, Miyata K, et al. Comparison of long-term outcomes of visual function and endothelial cell survival after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty using mixed-effects models. Cornea. 2016;35:1526–32.27560035
52. Weisenthal RW Yin HY Jarstad AR Wang D Verdier DD Long-term outcomes in fellow eyes comparing DSAEK and DMEK for treatment of fuchs corneal dystrophy Am J Ophthalmol 2022 233 216 26 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.06.013 34157279
Weisenthal RW, Yin HY, Jarstad AR, Wang D, Verdier DD. Long-term outcomes in fellow eyes comparing DSAEK and DMEK for treatment of fuchs corneal dystrophy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2022;233:216–26.34157279
53. Koenig SB Covert DJ Early results of small-incision Descemet’s stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty Ophthalmology 2007 114 221 6 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.07.056 17156845
Koenig SB, Covert DJ. Early results of small-incision Descemet’s stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:221–6.17156845
54. Kim SE Lim SA Byun Y-S Joo C-K Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes between Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with bullous keratopathy Korean J Ophthalmol 2016 30 443 50 10.3341/kjo.2016.30.6.443 27980363
Kim SE, Lim SA, Byun Y-S, Joo C-K. Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes between Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with bullous keratopathy. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2016;30:443–50.27980363
55. Clemmensen K Ivarsen A Hjortdal J Changes in corneal power after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty J Refract Surg 2015 31 807 12 10.3928/1081597X-20151111-04 26653725
Clemmensen K, Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J. Changes in corneal power after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. J Refract Surg. 2015;31:807–12.26653725
56. Ang M Mehta JS Anshu A Wong HK Htoon HM Tan D Endothelial cell counts after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in Asian eyes Clin Ophthalmol 2012 6 537 44 10.2147/OPTH.S26343 22536049
Ang M, Mehta JS, Anshu A, Wong HK, Htoon HM, Tan D. Endothelial cell counts after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in Asian eyes. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:537–44.22536049
57. Lekhanont K Vanikieti K Nimvorapun N Chuckpaiwong V Outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty using imported donor corneas BMC Ophthalmol 2017 17 41 10.1186/s12886-017-0436-0 28381247
Lekhanont K, Vanikieti K, Nimvorapun N, Chuckpaiwong V. Outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty using imported donor corneas. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17:41.28381247
58. Ye Y Mori N Kobayashi A Yokogawa H Sugiyama K Long-term outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy after argon laser iridotomy Jpn J Ophthalmol 2021 65 454 9 10.1007/s10384-021-00832-w 33723686
Ye Y, Mori N, Kobayashi A, Yokogawa H, Sugiyama K. Long-term outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy after argon laser iridotomy. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2021;65:454–9.33723686
59. Srikumaran D Campbell J Woreta F Stoeger C McClory C Engstrom M Primary graft failure following keratoplasty in the United States: current trends Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2020 61 3580
Srikumaran D, Campbell J, Woreta F, Stoeger C, McClory C, Engstrom M, et al. Primary graft failure following keratoplasty in the United States: current trends. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020;61:3580.
60. Green M Wilkins MR Comparison of early surgical experience and visual outcomes of DSAEK and DMEK Cornea 2015 34 1341 4 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000590 26356748
Green M, Wilkins MR. Comparison of early surgical experience and visual outcomes of DSAEK and DMEK. Cornea. 2015;34:1341–4.26356748
61. Maier A-KB Gundlach E Gonnermann J Klamann MKJ Bertelmann E Rieck PW Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Eye (Lond) 2015 29 327 32 10.1038/eye.2014.280 25412715
Maier A-KB, Gundlach E, Gonnermann J, Klamann MKJ, Bertelmann E, Rieck PW, et al. Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Eye (Lond). 2015;29:327–32.25412715
62. Ang M Soh Y Htoon HM Mehta JS Tan D Five-year graft survival comparing Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty Ophthalmology 2016 123 1646 52 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.04.049 27262764
Ang M, Soh Y, Htoon HM, Mehta JS, Tan D. Five-year graft survival comparing Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:1646–52.27262764
63. Ang M Li L Chua D Wong C Htoon HM Mehta JS Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with anterior chamber intraocular lenses: complications and 3-year outcomes Br J Ophthalmol 2014 98 1028 32 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304622 24676725
Ang M, Li L, Chua D, Wong C, Htoon HM, Mehta JS, et al. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with anterior chamber intraocular lenses: complications and 3-year outcomes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:1028–32.24676725
64. Vasiliauskaitė I Oellerich S Ham L Dapena I Baydoun L van Dijk K Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: ten-year graft survival and clinical outcomes Am J Ophthalmol 2020 217 114 20 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.04.005 32283096
Vasiliauskaitė I, Oellerich S, Ham L, Dapena I, Baydoun L, van Dijk K, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: ten-year graft survival and clinical outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;217:114–20.32283096
65. Wu J Wu T Li J Wang L Huang Y DSAEK or DMEK for failed penetrating keratoplasty: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis Int Ophthalmol 2021 41 2315 28 10.1007/s10792-021-01778-1 34117964
Wu J, Wu T, Li J, Wang L, Huang Y. DSAEK or DMEK for failed penetrating keratoplasty: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41:2315–28.34117964
66. Yoeruek E Bartz-Schmidt KU Novel technique for improving graft unfolding in vitrectomized eyes using a temporary diaphragm in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2018 37 1334 6 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001614 30063478
Yoeruek E, Bartz-Schmidt KU. Novel technique for improving graft unfolding in vitrectomized eyes using a temporary diaphragm in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2018;37:1334–6.30063478
67. Shimazaki J Tomida D Yamaguchi T Satake Y Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty performed by trainees Jpn J Ophthalmol 2019 63 158 64 10.1007/s10384-019-00652-z 30783938
Shimazaki J, Tomida D, Yamaguchi T, Satake Y. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty performed by trainees. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2019;63:158–64.30783938
68. Busin M Madi S Santorum P Scorcia V Beltz J Ultrathin Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the microkeratome double-pass technique Ophthalmology 2013 120 1186 94 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.030 23466268
Busin M, Madi S, Santorum P, Scorcia V, Beltz J. Ultrathin Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the microkeratome double-pass technique. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1186–94.23466268
69. Heinzelmann S Maier P Böhringer D Auw-Hädrich C Reinhard T Visual outcome and histological findings following femtosecond laser-assisted versus microkeratome-assisted DSAEK Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2013 251 1979 85 10.1007/s00417-013-2359-7 23661098
Heinzelmann S, Maier P, Böhringer D, Auw-Hädrich C, Reinhard T. Visual outcome and histological findings following femtosecond laser-assisted versus microkeratome-assisted DSAEK. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:1979–85.23661098
70. Serrao S Buratto L Lombardo G De Santo MP Ducoli P Lombardo M Optimal parameters to improve the interface quality of the flap bed in femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis J Cataract Refract Surg 2012 38 1453 9 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.05.021 22814052
Serrao S, Buratto L, Lombardo G, De Santo MP, Ducoli P, Lombardo M. Optimal parameters to improve the interface quality of the flap bed in femtosecond laser-assisted laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:1453–9.22814052
71. Shilova NF Livny E Anisimova NS Antonova OP Malyugin BE Refractive outcomes following cataract combined with lamellar keratoplasty: femtosecond-DSEK versus microkeratome-DSAEK Int Ophthalmol 2021 41 639 47 10.1007/s10792-020-01619-7 33090312
Shilova NF, Livny E, Anisimova NS, Antonova OP, Malyugin BE. Refractive outcomes following cataract combined with lamellar keratoplasty: femtosecond-DSEK versus microkeratome-DSAEK. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41:639–47.33090312
72. Lee WB Jacobs DS Musch DC Kaufman SC Reinhart WJ Shtein RM Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology Ophthalmology 2009 116 1818 30 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.021 19643492
Lee WB, Jacobs DS, Musch DC, Kaufman SC, Reinhart WJ, Shtein RM. Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1818–30.19643492
73. Cornea Donor Study Investigator GroupLass JH Gal RL Dontchev M Beck RW Kollman C Donor age and corneal endothelial cell loss 5 years after successful corneal transplantation. Specular microscopy ancillary study results Ophthalmology 2008 115 627 e6328 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.01.004 18387408
Cornea Donor Study Investigator Group, Lass JH, Gal RL, Dontchev M, Beck RW, Kollman C, et al. Donor age and corneal endothelial cell loss 5 years after successful corneal transplantation. Specular microscopy ancillary study results. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:627–e6328.18387408
74. Price MO Fairchild KM Price DA Price FW Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty five-year graft survival and endothelial cell loss Ophthalmology 2011 118 725 9 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.08.012 21035862
Price MO, Fairchild KM, Price DA, Price FW. Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty five-year graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:725–9.21035862
75. Kobayashi A Yokogawa H Mori N Nishino T Sugiyama K Clinical evaluation of the NS Endo-inserter, a novel donor inserter for Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Case Rep Ophthalmol 2019 10 357 64 10.1159/000503441 31762768
Kobayashi A, Yokogawa H, Mori N, Nishino T, Sugiyama K. Clinical evaluation of the NS Endo-inserter, a novel donor inserter for Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2019;10:357–64.31762768
76. Nakatani S Yamaguchi M Iwamoto S Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty via a frown incision Jpn J Ophthalmol 2024 68 50 6 10.1007/s10384-023-01038-y 38163816
Nakatani S, Yamaguchi M, Iwamoto S. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty via a frown incision. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2024;68:50–6.38163816
77. Fernandez MM Afshari NA Endothelial keratoplasty: from DLEK to DMEK Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2010 17 5 8 10.4103/0974-9233.61210 20543930
Fernandez MM, Afshari NA. Endothelial keratoplasty: from DLEK to DMEK. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2010;17:5–8.20543930
78. Dunker SL Veldman MHJ Winkens B van den Biggelaar FJHM Nuijts RMMA Kruit PJ Real-world outcomes of DEMK: a prospective Dutch registry study Am J Ophthalmol 2021 222 218 25 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.06.023 32621899
Dunker SL, Veldman MHJ, Winkens B, van den Biggelaar FJHM, Nuijts RMMA, Kruit PJ, et al. Real-world outcomes of DEMK: a prospective Dutch registry study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;222:218–25.32621899
79. Gibbons A Leung EH Yoo SH Cost-effectiveness analysis of Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in the United States Ophthalmology 2019 126 207 13 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.09.033 30273621
Gibbons A, Leung EH, Yoo SH. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2019;126:207–13.30273621
80. Santaella G Sorkin N Mimouni M Trinh T Cohen E Chan CC Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in aphakic and aniridic patients Cornea 2020 39 1389 93 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002387 32541186
Santaella G, Sorkin N, Mimouni M, Trinh T, Cohen E, Chan CC, et al. Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in aphakic and aniridic patients. Cornea. 2020;39:1389–93.32541186
81. Pierné K Panthier C Courtin R Mazharian A Souedan V Gatinel D Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty Cornea 2019 38 280 4 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001834 30575620
Pierné K, Panthier C, Courtin R, Mazharian A, Souedan V, Gatinel D, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2019;38:280–4.30575620
82. Ashena Z Hickman-Casey T Nanavaty MA Descemet membrane suturing to manage recurrent graft detachment in a patient with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty on failed penetrating keratoplasty Ther Adv Ophthalmol 2021 13 251584142110277 10.1177/25158414211027705
Ashena Z, Hickman-Casey T, Nanavaty MA. Descemet membrane suturing to manage recurrent graft detachment in a patient with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty on failed penetrating keratoplasty. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2021;13:251584142110277.
83. Majmudar PA Johnson L Enhancing DMEK success by identifying optimal levels of trypan blue dye application to donor corneal tissue Cornea 2017 36 217 21 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001074 28060070
Majmudar PA, Johnson L. Enhancing DMEK success by identifying optimal levels of trypan blue dye application to donor corneal tissue. Cornea. 2017;36:217–21.28060070
84. Hayashi T Yuda K Oyakawa I Kato N Use of brilliant blue G in Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty Biomed Res Int 2017 2017 9720389 10.1155/2017/9720389 28676862
Hayashi T, Yuda K, Oyakawa I, Kato N. Use of brilliant blue G in Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:9720389.28676862
85. Newman LR DeMill DL Zeidenweber DA Mayko ZM Bauer AJ Tran KD Preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty donor tissue: Surgical technique and early clinical results Cornea 2018 37 981 6 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001646 29863542
Newman LR, DeMill DL, Zeidenweber DA, Mayko ZM, Bauer AJ, Tran KD, et al. Preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty donor tissue: Surgical technique and early clinical results. Cornea. 2018;37:981–6.29863542
86. Kruse FE Laaser K Cursiefen C Heindl LM Schlötzer-Schrehardt U Riss S A stepwise approach to donor preparation and insertion increases safety and outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2011 30 580 7 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182000e2e 21598430
Kruse FE, Laaser K, Cursiefen C, Heindl LM, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Riss S, et al. A stepwise approach to donor preparation and insertion increases safety and outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2011;30:580–7.21598430
87. Hayashi T Oyakawa I Kato N Techniques for learning Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for eyes of Asian patients with shallow anterior chamber Cornea 2017 36 390 3 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001093 28002113
Hayashi T, Oyakawa I, Kato N. Techniques for learning Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for eyes of Asian patients with shallow anterior chamber. Cornea. 2017;36:390–3.28002113
88. Spaniol K Hellmich M Borgardts K Girbardt C Maier P Reinhard T DMEK outcome after one year - results from a large multicenter study in Germany Acta Ophthalmol 2023 101 e215 25 10.1111/aos.15257 36178238
Spaniol K, Hellmich M, Borgardts K, Girbardt C, Maier P, Reinhard T, et al. DMEK outcome after one year - results from a large multicenter study in Germany. Acta Ophthalmol. 2023;101:e215–25.36178238
89. Borroni D de Lossada C Parekh M Gadhvi K Bonzano C Romano V Tips, tricks, and guides in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty learning curve J Ophthalmol 2021 2021 1819454 10.1155/2021/1819454 34447591
Borroni D, de Lossada C, Parekh M, Gadhvi K, Bonzano C, Romano V, et al. Tips, tricks, and guides in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty learning curve. J Ophthalmol. 2021;2021:1819454.34447591
90. Li S Liu L Wang W Huang T Zhong X Yuan J Efficacy and safety of Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis PLoS ONE 2017 12 12 e0182275 10.1371/journal.pone.0182275 29252983
Li S, Liu L, Wang W, Huang T, Zhong X, Yuan J, et al. Efficacy and safety of Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0182275.29252983
91. Droutsas K Giallouros E Melles GRJ Chatzistefanou K Sekundo W Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: learning curve of a single surgeon Cornea 2013 32 1075 9 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31828f0e3c 23635857
Droutsas K, Giallouros E, Melles GRJ, Chatzistefanou K, Sekundo W. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: learning curve of a single surgeon. Cornea. 2013;32:1075–9.23635857
92. Debellemanière G Guilbert E Courtin R Panthier C Sabatier P Gatinel D Impact of surgical learning curve in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty on visual acuity gain Cornea 2017 36 1 6 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001066 27811564
Debellemanière G, Guilbert E, Courtin R, Panthier C, Sabatier P, Gatinel D, et al. Impact of surgical learning curve in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty on visual acuity gain. Cornea. 2017;36:1–6.27811564
93. Heinzelmann S Böhringer D Eberwein P Reinhard T Maier P Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty from a single centre study Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2016 254 515 22 10.1007/s00417-015-3248-z 26743748
Heinzelmann S, Böhringer D, Eberwein P, Reinhard T, Maier P. Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty from a single centre study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254:515–22.26743748
94. Veldman PB Dye PK Holiman JD Mayko ZM Sáles CS Straiko MD The S-stamp in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty safely eliminates upside-down graft implantation Ophthalmology 2016 123 161 4 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.08.044 26439215
Veldman PB, Dye PK, Holiman JD, Mayko ZM, Sáles CS, Straiko MD, et al. The S-stamp in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty safely eliminates upside-down graft implantation. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:161–4.26439215
95. Dirisamer M Van Dijk K Dapena I Ham L Oganes O Frank LE Prevention and management of graft detachment in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Arch Ophthalmol 2012 130 280 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.343 22084160
Dirisamer M, Van Dijk K, Dapena I, Ham L, Oganes O, Frank LE, et al. Prevention and management of graft detachment in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130:280.22084160
96. Magnier F Dutheil F Pereira B Watson SL Baker JS Chiambaretta F Preventive treatment of allograft rejection after endothelial keratoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis Acta Ophthalmol 2022 100 e1061 73 10.1111/aos.15154 35411680
Magnier F, Dutheil F, Pereira B, Watson SL, Baker JS, Chiambaretta F, et al. Preventive treatment of allograft rejection after endothelial keratoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2022;100:e1061–73.35411680
97. Arbelaez JG Price MO Price FW Long-term follow-up and complications of stripping Descemet membrane without placement of graft in eyes with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy Cornea 2014 33 1295 9 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000270 25299425
Arbelaez JG, Price MO, Price FW. Long-term follow-up and complications of stripping Descemet membrane without placement of graft in eyes with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cornea. 2014;33:1295–9.25299425
98. Price MO Price FW Kruse FE Bachmann BO Tourtas T Randomized comparison of topical prednisolone acetate 1% versus fluorometholone 0.1% in the first year after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2014 33 880 6 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000206 25062336
Price MO, Price FW, Kruse FE, Bachmann BO, Tourtas T. Randomized comparison of topical prednisolone acetate 1% versus fluorometholone 0.1% in the first year after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2014;33:880–6.25062336
99. Hos D Tuac O Schaub F Stanzel TP Schrittenlocher S Hellmich M Incidence and clinical course of immune reactions after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: retrospective analysis of 1000 consecutive eyes Ophthalmology 2017 124 512 8 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.12.017 28094043
Hos D, Tuac O, Schaub F, Stanzel TP, Schrittenlocher S, Hellmich M, et al. Incidence and clinical course of immune reactions after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: retrospective analysis of 1000 consecutive eyes. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:512–8.28094043
100. Heindl LM Koch KR Bucher F Hos D Steven P Koch H-R Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with glaucoma implants Optom Vis Sci 2013 90 e241 4 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31829d8e64 23892494
Heindl LM, Koch KR, Bucher F, Hos D, Steven P, Koch H-R, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with glaucoma implants. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:e241–4. discussion 1029.23892494
101. Kitazawa K Kayukawa K Wakimasu K Inatomi T Hieda O Mori K Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of cystoid macular edema post Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Jpn J Ophthalmol 2018 62 615 20 10.1007/s10384-018-0621-6 30255396
Kitazawa K, Kayukawa K, Wakimasu K, Inatomi T, Hieda O, Mori K, et al. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of cystoid macular edema post Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2018;62:615–20.30255396
102. Kitazawa K Kayukawa K Wakimasu K Yokota I Inatomi T Hieda O Cystoid macular edema after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Ophthalmology 2017 124 572 3 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.11.001 27986384
Kitazawa K, Kayukawa K, Wakimasu K, Yokota I, Inatomi T, Hieda O, et al. Cystoid macular edema after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:572–3.27986384
103. Inoda S Hayashi T Takahashi H Oyakawa I Yokogawa H Kobayashi A Risk factors for cystoid macular edema after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2019 38 820 4 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001950 30973407
Inoda S, Hayashi T, Takahashi H, Oyakawa I, Yokogawa H, Kobayashi A, et al. Risk factors for cystoid macular edema after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2019;38:820–4.30973407
104. Pedemonte-Sarrias E Salvador Playà T Sassot Cladera I Gris O Ribas Martínez J García-Arumí J Incidence of cystoid macular edema after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Int J Ophthalmol 2017 10 1081 7 28730110
Pedemonte-Sarrias E, Salvador Playà T, Sassot Cladera I, Gris O, Ribas Martínez J, García-Arumí J, et al. Incidence of cystoid macular edema after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Int J Ophthalmol. 2017;10:1081–7.28730110
105. Kitazawa K Kayukawa K Wakimasu K Yokota I Inatomi T Hieda O Predictive clinical factors of cystoid macular edema in patients with Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Sci Rep 2017 7 7412 10.1038/s41598-017-07079-x 28785053
Kitazawa K, Kayukawa K, Wakimasu K, Yokota I, Inatomi T, Hieda O, et al. Predictive clinical factors of cystoid macular edema in patients with Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Sci Rep. 2017;7:7412.28785053
106. Kocaba V Mouchel R Fleury J Marty AS Janin-Manificat H Maucort-Boulch D Incidence of cystoid macular edema after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2018 37 277 82 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001501 29298168
Kocaba V, Mouchel R, Fleury J, Marty AS, Janin-Manificat H, Maucort-Boulch D, et al. Incidence of cystoid macular edema after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2018;37:277–82.29298168
107. Hayashi T Hos D Schrittenlocher S Siebelmann S Matthaei M Franklin J Effect of iris color on the outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2020 39 846 50 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002305 32195753
Hayashi T, Hos D, Schrittenlocher S, Siebelmann S, Matthaei M, Franklin J, et al. Effect of iris color on the outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2020;39:846–50.32195753
108. Kobashigawa Y Shimizu T Hayashi T Kobashigawa H Yuda K Mizuki N Iris posterior synechiae after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in Asian eyes: Prevention and management of posterior synechiae Eye Contact Lens 2020 46 116 20 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000616 31429828
Kobashigawa Y, Shimizu T, Hayashi T, Kobashigawa H, Yuda K, Mizuki N, et al. Iris posterior synechiae after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in Asian eyes: Prevention and management of posterior synechiae. Eye Contact Lens. 2020;46:116–20.31429828
109. Sawa M Laser flare-cell photometer: principle and significance in clinical and basic ophthalmology Jpn J Ophthalmol 2017 61 21 42 10.1007/s10384-016-0488-3 27888376
Sawa M. Laser flare-cell photometer: principle and significance in clinical and basic ophthalmology. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2017;61:21–42.27888376
110. Sawa M, Yoichiro T, Tadahiro T, Hiroyuki S. New quantitative method to determine protein concentration and cell number in aqueous in vivo. 1988;32:132–42.
111. Hayashi T Takahashi H Inoda S Shimizu T Kobayashi A Kawashima H Aqueous humour cytokine profiles after Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty Sci Rep 2021 11 17064 10.1038/s41598-021-96566-3 34426617
Hayashi T, Takahashi H, Inoda S, Shimizu T, Kobayashi A, Kawashima H, et al. Aqueous humour cytokine profiles after Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Sci Rep. 2021;11:17064.34426617
112. Shimizu T Hayashi T Ishida A Kobayashi A Yamaguchi T Mizuki N Evaluation of corneal nerves and dendritic cells by in vivo confocal microscopy after Descemet’s membrane keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy Sci Rep 2022 12 6936 10.1038/s41598-022-10939-w 35484297
Shimizu T, Hayashi T, Ishida A, Kobayashi A, Yamaguchi T, Mizuki N, et al. Evaluation of corneal nerves and dendritic cells by in vivo confocal microscopy after Descemet’s membrane keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy. Sci Rep. 2022;12:6936.35484297
113. Berger O Kriman J Vasquez-Perez A Allan BD Safety-net suture for aphakic Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2022 41 789 91 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002923 35249978
Berger O, Kriman J, Vasquez-Perez A, Allan BD. Safety-net suture for aphakic Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2022;41:789–91.35249978
114. Hayashi T Kobayashi A Double-bubble technique in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for vitrectomized eyes: a case series Cornea 2018 37 1185 8 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001606 29634673
Hayashi T, Kobayashi A. Double-bubble technique in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for vitrectomized eyes: a case series. Cornea. 2018;37:1185–8.29634673
115. Matsuzawa A Hayashi T Oyakawa I Yuda K Shimizu T Mizuki N Use of four asymmetric marks to orient the donor graft during Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty BMJ Open Ophthalmol 2017 1 1 e000080 10.1136/bmjophth-2017-000080 29354713
Matsuzawa A, Hayashi T, Oyakawa I, Yuda K, Shimizu T, Mizuki N, et al. Use of four asymmetric marks to orient the donor graft during Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2017;1(1):e000080.29354713
116. Shimizu T Yamagami S Mizuki N Hayashi T Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in Asian eyes Curr Ophthalmol Rep 2020 8 208 15 10.1007/s40135-020-00256-8
Shimizu T, Yamagami S, Mizuki N, Hayashi T. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in Asian eyes. Curr Ophthalmol Rep. 2020;8:208–15.
117. Shimizu T Hayashi T Yuda K Tsuchiya A Oyakawa I Mizuki N Chandelier illumination for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2017 36 1155 7 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001254 28644235
Shimizu T, Hayashi T, Yuda K, Tsuchiya A, Oyakawa I, Mizuki N, et al. Chandelier illumination for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2017;36:1155–7.28644235
118. Kobayashi A Yokogawa H Yamazaki N Masaki T Sugiyama K The use of endoillumination probe-assisted Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy secondary to argon laser iridotomy Clin Ophthalmol 2015 9 91 3 10.2147/OPTH.S74981 25609910
Kobayashi A, Yokogawa H, Yamazaki N, Masaki T, Sugiyama K. The use of endoillumination probe-assisted Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy secondary to argon laser iridotomy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:91–3.25609910
119. Saad A Guilbert E Grise-Dulac A Sabatier P Gatinel D Intraoperative OCT-assisted DMEK: 14 consecutive cases Cornea 2015 34 802 7 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000462 26002152
Saad A, Guilbert E, Grise-Dulac A, Sabatier P, Gatinel D. Intraoperative OCT-assisted DMEK: 14 consecutive cases. Cornea. 2015;34:802–7.26002152
120. Kaufman AR Nosé RM Pineda R Descemetorhexis without endothelial keratoplasty (DWEK): proposal for nomenclature standardization Cornea 2018 37 E20 1 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001528 29384812
Kaufman AR, Nosé RM, Pineda R. Descemetorhexis without endothelial keratoplasty (DWEK): proposal for nomenclature standardization. Cornea. 2018;37:E20–1.29384812
121. Moloney G Petsoglou C Ball M Kerdraon Y Höllhumer R Spiteri N Descemetorhexis without grafting for fuchs endothelial dystrophy—supplementation with topical ripasudil Cornea 2017 36 642 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001209 28476048
Moloney G, Petsoglou C, Ball M, Kerdraon Y, Höllhumer R, Spiteri N, et al. Descemetorhexis without grafting for fuchs endothelial dystrophy—supplementation with topical ripasudil. Cornea. 2017;36:642.28476048
122. Colby K Descemet stripping only for fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy: will it become the gold standard? Cornea 2022 41 269 71 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002796 34864799
Colby K. Descemet stripping only for fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy: will it become the gold standard? Cornea. 2022;41:269–71.34864799
123. Morishige N Yamada N Morita Y Kimura K Sonoda K-H Persistence of structural changes at the anterior cornea in bullous keratopathy patients after endothelial keratoplasty PLoS ONE 2013 8 e74279 10.1371/journal.pone.0074279 24066132
Morishige N, Yamada N, Morita Y, Kimura K, Sonoda K-H. Persistence of structural changes at the anterior cornea in bullous keratopathy patients after endothelial keratoplasty. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e74279.24066132
124. Morishige N Sonoda K-H Bullous Keratopathy as a progressive disease: evidence from clinical and laboratory imaging studies Cornea 2013 32 Suppl 1 S77 83 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182a1bc65 24104939
Morishige N, Sonoda K-H. Bullous Keratopathy as a progressive disease: evidence from clinical and laboratory imaging studies. Cornea. 2013;32(Suppl 1):S77–83.24104939
125. Kinoshita S Koizumi N Ueno M Okumura N Imai K Tanaka H Injection of cultured cells with a ROCK inhibitor for bullous keratopathy N Engl J Med 2018 378 995 1003 10.1056/NEJMoa1712770 29539291
Kinoshita S, Koizumi N, Ueno M, Okumura N, Imai K, Tanaka H, et al. Injection of cultured cells with a ROCK inhibitor for bullous keratopathy. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:995–1003.29539291
126. Hatou S Shimmura S Review Corneal endothelial cell derivation methods from ES/iPS cells Inflamm Regen 2019 39 19 10.1186/s41232-019-0108-y 31592286
Hatou S, Shimmura S, Review. Corneal endothelial cell derivation methods from ES/iPS cells. Inflamm Regen. 2019;39:19.31592286
127. Hatou S Shimmura S Advances in corneal regenerative medicine with iPS cells Jpn J Ophthalmol 2023 67 541 5 10.1007/s10384-023-01015-5 37578549
Hatou S, Shimmura S. Advances in corneal regenerative medicine with iPS cells. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2023;67:541–5.37578549
128. Auffarth GU Son H-S Koch M Weindler J Merz P Daphna O Implantation of an artificial endothelial layer for treatment of chronic corneal edema Cornea 2021 40 1633 8 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002806 34294634
Auffarth GU, Son H-S, Koch M, Weindler J, Merz P, Daphna O, et al. Implantation of an artificial endothelial layer for treatment of chronic corneal edema. Cornea. 2021;40:1633–8.34294634
129. Droutsas K Lazaridis A Giallouros E Kymionis G Chatzistefanou K Sekundo W Scheimpflug densitometry after DMEK versus DSAEK-two-year outcomes Cornea 2018 37 455 61 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001483 29300261
Droutsas K, Lazaridis A, Giallouros E, Kymionis G, Chatzistefanou K, Sekundo W. Scheimpflug densitometry after DMEK versus DSAEK-two-year outcomes. Cornea. 2018;37:455–61.29300261
130. Ida Y Shimizu T Kuroki T Mizuki Y Takeda M Mizuki N Risk factors for intraocular pressure elevation following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in Asian patients Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2023 261 749 60 10.1007/s00417-022-05835-y 36123407
Ida Y, Shimizu T, Kuroki T, Mizuki Y, Takeda M, Mizuki N, et al. Risk factors for intraocular pressure elevation following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in Asian patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023;261:749–60.36123407
131. Hayashi T Kobayashi A Takahashi H Oyakawa I Kato N Yamaguchi T Optical characteristics after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1-year results PLoS ONE 2020 15 10 e0240458 10.1371/journal.pone.0240458 33052928
Hayashi T, Kobayashi A, Takahashi H, Oyakawa I, Kato N, Yamaguchi T. Optical characteristics after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1-year results. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(10):e0240458.33052928
132. Oyakawa I Hayashi T Kobashigawa Y Matsuzawa A Takahashi H Kato N Evaluation of anterior and posterior corneal irregularity after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2018 37 1360 5 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001722 30124590
Oyakawa I, Hayashi T, Kobashigawa Y, Matsuzawa A, Takahashi H, Kato N. Evaluation of anterior and posterior corneal irregularity after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2018;37:1360–5.30124590
133. Rudolph M Laaser K Bachmann BO Cursiefen C Epstein D Kruse FE Corneal higher-order aberrations after Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty Ophthalmology 2012 119 528 35 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.08.034 22197439
Rudolph M, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C, Epstein D, Kruse FE. Corneal higher-order aberrations after Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:528–35.22197439
134. Schrittenlocher S Schlereth SL Siebelmann S Hayashi T Matthaei M Bachmann B Long-term outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) following failed penetrating keratoplasty (PK) Acta Ophthalmol 2020 98 e901 6 10.1111/aos.14417 32198835
Schrittenlocher S, Schlereth SL, Siebelmann S, Hayashi T, Matthaei M, Bachmann B, et al. Long-term outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) following failed penetrating keratoplasty (PK). Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98:e901–6.32198835
135. Joshi VP Vaddavalli PK Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and goniosynechialysis in iridocorneal endothelial syndrome: Surgical perspective and long-term outcomes Cornea 2022 41 1418 25 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002968 35120350
Joshi VP, Vaddavalli PK. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and goniosynechialysis in iridocorneal endothelial syndrome: Surgical perspective and long-term outcomes. Cornea. 2022;41:1418–25.35120350
136. Hayashi T Iliasian RM Matthaei M Schrittenlocher S Masumoto H Tanabe M Transferability of an artificial intelligence algorithm predicting rebubblings after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty Cornea 2023 42 544 8 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003049 35543586
Hayashi T, Iliasian RM, Matthaei M, Schrittenlocher S, Masumoto H, Tanabe M, et al. Transferability of an artificial intelligence algorithm predicting rebubblings after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2023;42:544–8.35543586
