1 DSEK continues to be a viable treatment option, especial
2 DSEK produces excellent visual outcomes with minimal cha
3 DSEK provides quicker visual rehabilitation and an impro
4 DSEK-related endophthalmitis may lead to severe vision l
5 by 6 months (PK, P = 0.008; DLEK, P = 0.
03;
DSEK, P < 0.001), with continued improvement between 6 m
6 between PK [-0.77 (95% CI, -1.45 to -0.
09)],
DSEK [-0.87 (95% CI, -1.35 to -0.39)] and DMEK [-0.85 (9
7 ocedures(2%) were performed; in Group II,
37 DSEK (41%), 51 PK (57%), and 2 keratoprosthesis procedur
8 ion: 46 DMEK procedures were matched with
46 DSEK procedures at a single institution.
9 A total of
835 DSEK cases performed by a single surgeon between Decembe
10 After DSEK, HCVA correlated with the 50% width (r = 0.48, P <
11 [5433] cells/mm(3) [n = 23]; P = .99)
after DSEK.
12 erated option to restore visual acuity
after DSEK in cases with significant lens opacities.
13 contribute to decreased visual acuity
after DSEK.
14 provement in uncorrected visual acuity
after DSEK.
15 as a source of decreased visual acuity
after DSEK.
16 ay light correlated with recipient age
after DSEK (r = 0.67, P < 0.001, n = 30), but not after PK (r
17 es of the eye with older recipient age
after DSEK can be attributed to the retained host cornea.
18 nce in the power of the eye before and
after DSEK surgery.
19 hs' dystrophy were examined before and
after DSEK, and were compared with 52 eyes of age-matched cont
20 Total HOAs were compared before and
after DSEK, and with those of age-matched controls, by using g
21 nically important with respect to BCVA
after DSEK, with meta-analysis suggesting a weak relationship.
22 The refractive change
after DSEK is determined by calculating the difference in the
23 Changes
after DSEK were analyzed using generalized estimating equation
24 sured and predicted refractive changes
after DSEK.
25 The most common complications
after DSEK were graft detachment (mean, 14%; range, 0%-82%), e
26 ard scatter in eyes with clear corneas
after DSEK.
27 The linear decline in ECD
after DSEK was consistent with shorter-term endothelial kerato
28 Individuals developing endophthalmitis
after DSEK at the Duke Eye Center from January 1, 2009, to Jan
29 l fibrosis and scarring become evident
after DSEK.
30 change in refractive power of the eye
after DSEK.
31 width was higher in pseudophakic eyes
after DSEK or PK compared with otherwise normal pseudophakic e
32 ent a secondary DMEK for graft failure
after DSEK from March 1, 2012, through February 28, 2013.
33 Patients with graft failure
after DSEK had a mean (SD) age of 79.4 (7.2) years (range, 70-
34 choice in patients with graft failure
after DSEK.
35 The improvement is faster
after DSEK than after PK, and this might be explained in part
36 le domain of the point-spread function
after DSEK suggests that aberrations contribute to decreased v
37 months, the composite score was higher
after DSEK than after PK (P = 0.006).
38 rincipal planes of the cornea and lens
after DSEK.
39 Mean EC loss
after DSEK was 37% at 6 months.
40 e of graft-rejection episodes is lower
after DSEK compared with standard penetrating keratoplasty, po
41 d at fixed intervals through 60 months
after DSEK.
42 al high-order aberrations at 12 months
after DSEK.
43 al cell loss were assessed at 6 months
after DSEK.
44 es might be related to visual outcomes
after DSEK.
45 tep for estimating the hyperopic shift
after DSEK.
46 s article reviews refractive surgeries
after DSEK to address this problem.
47 Between 1 and 5 years
after DSEK, BSCVA continues to improve such that at 5 years, m
48 At 2 years
after DSEK, total HOAs (0.26+/-0.13 mum) did not differ from p
49 per year between 6 months and 10 years
after DSEK.
50 (67%) and remained present at 3 years
after DSEK.
51 efore and at intervals through 2 years
after DSEK.
52 ols, and remain higher through 2 years
after DSEK.
53 6 months and 3 years after PK (P = 0.01)
and DSEK (P = 0.004).
54 repeat keratoplasty were similar in DMEK
and DSEK after the learning curve for DMEK.
55 ICERs) comparing PK with no intervention
and DSEK with PK.
56 survival was also comparable between PK
and DSEK eyes (P = 0.18).
57 he AGV success was comparable between PK
and DSEK eyes (P = 0.73).
58 (logMAR) (Snellen equivalent, 20/56)
before DSEK to 0.09+/-0.13 logMAR (Snellen equivalent, 20/25) a
59 of the host stroma in Fuchs dystrophy
before DSEK (mean [SD], 22 030 [6479] cells/mm(3) [n = 41]) rem
60 In Fuchs' dystrophy
before DSEK, total HOAs (4 mm optical zone) from the anterior c
61 eyes (P < 0.001) but did not differ
between DSEK and PK (P = 0.36).
62 ant differences in ECD were observed
between DSEK and DMEK 6 (P = .88) and 12 months (P = .33) postop
63 erformed to assess the relationships
between DSEK timing and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (
64 omparable in surviving clear grafts for
both DSEK and PK.
65 Three hundred fifty-six
consecutive DSEK grafts performed by 10 surgeons using a standardize
66 DMEK/
DSEK hybrids and 'thin' DSEK also can provide better vis
67 Performing
earlier DSEK for pseudophakic corneal edema appears to be associ
68 Our aim is to determine whether
earlier DSEK is associated with improved visual outcomes.
69 on and $5209 per QALY for the more
expensive DSEK relative to PK.
70 Histologically,
failed DSEK graft lenticels presented condensations of collagen
71 ble to treat refractive compromise
following DSEK.
72 on repeat DMEK, 6 studies of DMEK
following DSEK, and 3 studies of DSEK after failed DMEK.
73 tervention was 0.128 QALYs (P<0.001) and
for DSEK relative to PK was 0.046 QALYs (P = 0.031).
74 resolution (logMAR) units (P<0.001), and
for DSEK relative to PK, it was -0.199 logMAR units (P = 0.0
75 Three-year charges
for DSEK and PK were $7476 and $7236, respectively.
76 Indication
for DSEK, surgically managed glaucoma, type and number of pr
77 ely, for DMEK; 8% and 12%, respectively,
for DSEK; and 14% and 18%, respectively, for PK.
78 ts with endothelial dysfunction suitable
for DSEK.
79 This model was applied to
four DSEK cases retrospectively, to compare measured and pred
80 FS-
DSEK was less effective and more costly compared to both
81 as 52% for DSAEK, 44% for PK, and 43% for
FS-
DSEK.
82 , and euro7072 (US$8416) in the PK group,
FS-
DSEK group, and DSAEK group, respectively.
83 The results of this study show that
FS-
DSEK was not cost-effective compared to PK and DSAEK.
84 were included in the PK group, 36 in the
FS-
DSEK group, and 42 in the DSAEK group.
85 ell loss than Busin glide donor insertion
in DSEK.
86 Descemet stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) (51%), 84 penetrating keratoplasty (PK) (46%), and
87 Descemet stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DM
88 scemet's stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) has become a preferred surgical correction for end
89 scemet's stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) in 6 eyes were included.
90 scemet's stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) in the right eye and Descemet's stripping only in
91 scemet's stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) is rapidly becoming the preferred treatment for co
92 scemet's stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) is rapidly replacing traditional full-thickness pe
93 scemet's stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) is the most popular treatment for endothelial dysf
94 Descemet stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) or combined cataract surgery with DSEK requires un
95 scemet's stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK) ranged from 20/34 to 20/66 at 9 months.
96 scemet's stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK).
97 Descemet stripping endothelial
keratoplasty (
DSEK).
98 met stripping with endothelial
keratoplasty [
DSEK], 30 eyes; penetrating keratoplasty [PK], 10 eyes)
99 wound healing is a lesser concern, and
many DSEK patients are maintained on low-dose topical steroid
100 Intraoperatively
obtained DSEK graft lenticels were investigated immunohistochemic
101 rformed to determine whether the benefits
of DSEK are worth the additional costs.
102 ere compared retrospectively with cohorts
of DSEK (n = 598) and PK (n = 30) patients treated at the s
103 ulectomy significantly increased the risk
of DSEK endothelial failure.
104 ies of DMEK following DSEK, and 3 studies
of DSEK after failed DMEK.
105 Patients underwent either PK (n = 171)
or DSEK (n = 93) from January 2001 through December 2007.
106 Some surgeons now routinely
perform DSEK with topical anesthesia.
107 ted to determine the optimal time to
perform DSEK in patients with pseudophakic corneal edema.
108 The ideal time to
perform DSEK to prevent permanent changes is unclear.
109 ovements in BSCVA were comparable across
PK,
DSEK and DMEK.
110 those reporting clinical outcomes after
PK,
DSEK, or DMEK- graft survival, best spectacle-corrected
111 Post-
DSEK visual acuity was compared in patients who underwen
112 The power of the eye
post-
DSEK surgery can be calculated with modified Gullstrand
113 Review of 1005 consecutive
primary DSEK procedures by 6 surgeons identified 752 grafts (75%
114 tudies evaluating graft thickness in
primary DSEK and visual outcomes.
115 e to achieve greater QALY gains by
providing DSEK to as many patients as possible (and nothing to oth
116 and reviewed, including 10 studies on
repeat DSEK, 8 studies on repeat DMEK, 6 studies of DMEK follow
117 most corneas with Fuchs dystrophy
requiring DSEK, even in cases with mild edema and in the absence o
118 societal health gains given fixed
resources,
DSEK should be the preferred strategy.
119 This
simplified DSEK mathematical model can be used as a first step for
120 also can provide better vision than
standard DSEK; randomized controlled comparisons with DMEK are ne
121 cant complaint after anatomically
successful DSEK.
122 ty in patients who previously had
successful DSEK with subsequent refractive errors.
123 isk of experiencing a rejection episode
than DSEK eyes (95% confidence limit [CL], 2.0-111; P = 0.008
124 the DMEK group compared with 54 (9%) in
the DSEK and 5 (17%) in the PK group.
125 AR in the DMEK group and -0.62 logMAR in
the DSEK group (P = 0.005) at 1 year follow-up.
126 ably 47% in the DMEK group versus 15% in
the DSEK group at 1 year (P = 0.002).
127 DMEK/DSEK hybrids and '
thin'
DSEK also can provide better vision than standard DSEK;
128 rate of secondary graft failure compared
to DSEK during the first postoperative year and beyond.
129 aft survival was better after PK compared
to DSEK in patients with ICE syndrome.
130 monstrated better graft survival compared
to DSEK in patients with ICE, however, further research and
131 In contrast
to DSEK, which includes posterior donor stroma, DMEK consis
132 ejection rates, DMEK seems to be superior
to DSEK and to induce less refractive error with similar su
133 POM6 BSCVA was better in patients with CE-
to-
DSEK time </=6 months (median 0.18, IQR 0.19) vs >6 mont
134 ificant relationship was found between CE-
to-
DSEK time and POM6 BSCVA (coefficient = 0.002, P = .033)
135 Median CE-
to-
DSEK time was 8.62 (interquartile range [IQR] 12.28) mon
136 m visual rehabilitation, patients
undergoing DSEK may require further refractive surgeries.
137 Patients who
underwent DSEK </=6 months after CE were more likely to achieve PO
138 cuity was compared in patients who
underwent DSEK </=6 months vs >6 months after CE.
139 Total of 120 eyes of patients who
underwent DSEK for corneal edema following cataract surgery (CE);
140 ure was lower in the DMEK group (DMEK 0%
vs.
DSEK 17%; P = 0.006).
141 e within 2 years after surgery compared
with DSEK and PK performed for similar indications using the
142 lar surgical risks and EC loss compared
with DSEK.
143 omplication rates to levels experienced
with DSEK.
144 ding the hyperopic shift that can occur
with DSEK and incorporating this correction preoperatively in
145 sty (DSEK) or combined cataract surgery
with DSEK requires understanding the hyperopic shift that can
146 At 10
years,
DSEK survival rate was 79% for all eyes, including compl