Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2019; 236(06): 756-761
DOI: 10.1055/a-0839-2835
Übersicht
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Therapieoptionen bei Endotheldekompensation nach Glaukomchirurgie

Therapeutic Options in Endothelial Decompensation Following Glaucoma Surgery
Philip Christian Maier
Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
,
Thomas Reinhard
Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingereicht 16 January 2019

akzeptiert 10 February 2019

Publication Date:
10 May 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Seit einigen Jahren hat sich die Descemet Membrane endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) in Deutschland als Methode der ersten Wahl bei Patienten mit Fuchs-Endotheldystrophie und pseudophaker bullöser Keratopathie durchgesetzt. Bei dieser Operationsmethode, bei der die erkrankte Descemet-Membran durch eine Spenderlamelle aus Descemet-Membran und Endothel ersetzt wird, kann es jedoch nach Glaukomoperationen wie der Trabekulektomie oder der Implantation von Drainageimplantaten zu spezifischen intra- und postoperativen Komplikationen kommen. Hierzu zählen die erschwerte Entfaltung der Transplantate durch das Vorhandensein eines Drainageimplantates mit einem entsprechend erhöhten Endothelzellverlust ebenso wie die Gefahr des Verlustes der Luft-/Gastamponade in der Vorderkammer über die Trabekulektomie bzw. das Drainageimplantat mit entsprechend erhöhtem Dislokationsrisiko für das Transplantat. In der folgenden Übersicht soll zunächst auf das Risiko des Endothelzellverlustes nach verschiedenen Glaukomoperationen eingegangen werden und anschließend die Vor- und Nachteile der verschiedenen Transplantationstechniken erörtert sowie mögliche Hilfestellungen zur Verbesserung der Operationstechnik gegeben werden.

Abstract

During the last few years, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) has become first line surgical treatment for patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy or pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. However, in eyes with previous trabeculectomy or implantation of a glaucoma drainage device, this surgical technique, where the diseased Descemetʼs membrane and endothelium are replaced by a lamella of donor Descemetʼs membrane and endothelium, may have some limitations. These include complications during surgery such as difficult unfolding of the graft in the presence of a glaucoma tube with a risk of an increased endothelial cell loss and problems after surgery like the loss of the air/gas tamponade in the anterior chamber through the opening of the trabeculectomy or the tube, with an increased risk of graft dislocation. The following review contains information on endothelial cell loss following different glaucoma operations, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various keratoplasty techniques and gives some technical advice for improving the surgical technique.

Schlüsselwörter

Kornea - DMEK - Glaukom - Keratoplastik

Key words

cornea - DMEK - glaucoma - keratoplasty
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Janson BJ, Alward WL, Kwon YH. et al. Glaucoma-associated corneal endothelial cell damage: a review. Surv Ophthalmol 2018; 63: 500-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gagnon MM, Boisjoly HM, Brunette I. et al. Corneal endothelial cell density in glaucoma. Cornea 1997; 16: 314-318
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cho SW, Kim JM, Choi CY. et al. Changes in corneal endothelial cell density in patients with normal-tension glaucoma. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2009; 53: 569-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wenzel M, Reinhard T, Reim M. et al. [Glaucoma and the endothelium]. Fortschr Ophthalmol 1988; 85: 474-477
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lass JH, Khosrof SA, Laurence JK. et al. A double-masked, randomized, 1-year study comparing the corneal effects of dorzolamide, timolol, and betaxolol. Dorzolamide Corneal Effects Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 1003-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Greenlee EC, Kwon YH. Graft failure: III. Glaucoma escalation after penetrating keratoplasty. Int Ophthalmol 2008; 28: 191-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hau S, Barton K. Corneal complications of glaucoma surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2009; 20: 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lee EK, Yun YJ, Lee JE. et al. Changes in corneal endothelial cells after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation: 2-year follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 2009; 148: 361-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nassiri N, Nassiri N, Majdi-N M. et al. Corneal endothelial cell changes after Ahmed valve and Molteno glaucoma implants. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2011; 42: 394-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gedde SJ, Herndon LW, Brandt JD. et al. Postoperative complications in the Tube Versus Trabeculectomy (TVT) study during five years of follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 2012; 153: 804-814.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tan AN, Webers CAB, Berendschot TTJM. et al. Corneal endothelial cell loss after Baerveldt glaucoma drainage device implantation in the anterior chamber. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 2017; 95: 91-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Iwasaki K, Arimura S, Takihara Y. et al. Prospective cohort study of corneal endothelial cell loss after Baerveldt glaucoma implantation. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0201342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Koo EB, Hou J, Han Y. et al. Effect of glaucoma tube shunt parameters on cornea endothelial cells in patients with Ahmed valve implants. Cornea 2015; 34: 37-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rosenfeld C, Price MO, Lai X. et al. Distinctive and pervasive alterations in aqueous humor protein composition following different types of glaucoma surgery. Mol Vis 2015; 21: 911-918
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kim MS, Kim KN, Kim CS. Changes in corneal endothelial cell after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation and trabeculectomy: 1-year follow-up. Korean J Ophthalmol 2016; 30: 416-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sihota R, Sharma T, Agarwal HC. Intraoperative mitomycin C and the corneal endothelium. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998; 76: 80-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Reinhard T, Böhringer D, Sundmacher R. Accelerated chronic endothelial cell loss after penetrating keratoplasty in glaucoma eyes. J Glaucoma 2001; 10: 446-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sugar A, Tanner JP, Dontchev M. et al. Recipient risk factors for graft failure in the cornea donor study. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 1023-1028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Reinhard T, Kallmann C, Cepin A. et al. The influence of glaucoma history on graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1997; 235: 553-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Heinzelmann S, Böhringer D, Haverkamp C. et al. Influence of postoperative intraocular pressure on graft detachment after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2018; 37: 1347-1350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Röck T, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Röck D. et al. [Management of corneal endothelial decompensation with Descemetʼs membrane endothelial keratoplasty in a patient with Ahmed glaucoma valve implant]. Ophthalmologe 2014; 111: 465-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Siebelmann S, Lopez Ramos S, Scholz P. et al. Graft detachment pattern after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty comparing air versus 20 % SF6 tamponade. Cornea 2018; 37: 834-839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bersudsky V, Treviño A, Rumelt S. Management of endothelial decompensation because of glaucoma shunt tube touch by Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and tube revision. Cornea 2011; 30: 709-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kang JJ, Ritterband DC, Lai K. et al. Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with previous glaucoma surgery. Cornea 2016; 35: 1520-1525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Decroos FC, Delmonte DW, Chow JH. et al. Increased rates of Descemetʼs stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) graft failure and dislocation in glaucomatous eyes with aqueous shunts. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2012; 7: 203-213
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nguyen P, Khashabi S, Chopra V. et al. Descemet stripping with automated endothelial keratoplasty: a comparative study of outcome in patients with preexisting glaucoma. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2013; 27: 73-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chiam PJ, Cheeseman R, Ho VW. et al. Outcome of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with an Ahmed glaucoma valve. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2017; 255: 987-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kim P, Amiran MD, Lichtinger A. et al. Outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in patients with previous glaucoma drainage device insertion. Cornea 2012; 31: 172-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Vasquez-Perez A, Naqib SM, Nanavaty MA. Modified Descemetʼs stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for eyes with glaucoma drainage devices and shallow anterior chambers. Int Ophthalmol 2018; 38: 1753-1757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sansanayudh W, Bahar I, Rootman D. Novel technique in preparing a donor DSAEK lenticule in a patient with a glaucoma drainage device. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93: 1267-1269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Iverson SM, Spierer O, Papachristou GC. et al. Comparison of graft survival following penetrating keratoplasty and Descemetʼs stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with a glaucoma drainage device. Int Ophthalmol 2018; 38: 223-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lieberman RA, Maris jr. PJ, Monroe HM. et al. Corneal graft survival and intraocular pressure control in coexisting penetrating keratoplasty and pars plana Ahmed Glaucoma Valves. Cornea 2012; 31: 350-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Knape RM, Szymarek TN, Tuli SS. et al. Five-year outcomes of eyes with glaucoma drainage device and penetrating keratoplasty. J Glaucoma 2012; 21: 608-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kwon YH, Taylor JM, Hong S. et al. Long-term results of eyes with penetrating keratoplasty and glaucoma drainage tube implant. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 272-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Topouzis F, Coleman AL, Choplin N. et al. Follow-up of the original cohort with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128: 198-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Witmer MT, Tiedeman JS, Olsakovsky LA. et al. Long-term intraocular pressure control and corneal graft survival in eyes with a pars plana Baerveldt implant and corneal transplant. J Glaucoma 2010; 19: 124-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW. Descemetʼs stripping endothelial keratoplasty: long-term graft survival and risk factors for failure in eyes with preexisting glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 1982-1987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Price MO, Fairchild KM, Price DA. et al. Descemetʼs stripping endothelial keratoplasty five-year graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 725-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Treder M, Alnawaiseh M, Eter N. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) early stage graft failure in eyes with preexisting glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2017; 255: 1417-1421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Aravena C, Yu F, Deng SX. Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in patients with previous glaucoma surgery. Cornea 2017; 36: 284-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Liarakos VS, Satue M, Livny E. et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for a decompensated penetrating keratoplasty graft in the presence of a long glaucoma tube. Cornea 2015; 34: 1613-1616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar