Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 24, 2026
Corneal Donor Tissue Preparation for Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty
Published on: September 17, 2014
Visual Outcomes of Repeat Versus Primary Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty-A Paired Comparison
Yoav Nahum1, Michael Mimouni, Silvana Madi
1*Department of Ophthalmology, "Villa Igea" Hospital, Forlì, Italy;†Istituto Internazionale per la Ricerca e Formazione in Oftalmologia (IRFO), Forlì, Italy;‡Department of Ophthalmology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel;§Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel;¶Department of Ophthalmology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel; and‖University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt.
Purpose:
To compare the results of repeat Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) with those of primary DSAEK.
Materials And Methods:
This retrospective study consisted of all consecutive eyes that underwent one or more repeat DSAEK surgeries after primary DSAEK performed at Villa Serena-Villa Igea Private Hospitals (Forlì, Italy) between January 2005 and June 2015. A paired comparison between the outcomes of primary and the second DSAEK was performed. Main outcome measures included best recorded best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), postoperative endothelial cell loss (ECL), and refractive error.
Results:
Of 1413 procedures, 51 eyes were included in the final analysis. Indications for primary DSAEK included pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (n = 21), Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (n = 20), failed penetrating keratoplasty (n = 9), and trauma (n = 1). Indications for repeat DSAEK were slowly progressive ECL (n = 35), endothelial rejection (n = 15), and host-graft interface abnormalities (n = 1). Preoperative BSCVA (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution 1.23 ± 0.8 vs. 1.38 ± 0.6, P = 0.29) and best postoperative BSCVA (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution 0.32 ± 0.44 vs. 0.34 ± 0.49, P = 0.70) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. ECLs for primary and repeat DSAEK at 1 (46% ± 16% vs. 40% ± 18%, P = 0.22) and 2 years (50% ± 18% vs. 44% ± 2%, P = 0.33) were also similar. The mean postoperative spherical equivalent did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (-0.01 ± 1.9 vs. -0.5 ± 1.6, P = 0.08) nor did the absolute astigmatic error (1.6 ± 1 vs. 1.8 ± 1.2, respectively, P = 0.17).
Conclusions:
After the failure of a primary DSAEK graft, a subsequent DSAEK can yield visual outcomes and ECL rates that are comparable with those of primary DSAEK.
