Clinical feasibility of using multiple grafts from a single donor for Quarter‐DMEK
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) may have opened the door towards more efficient use of donor corneal tissue (Lie et al. 2010; Tenkman et al. 2014). Recently, we have introduced Quarter-DMEK for the treatment of Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy, which could potentially quadruple the yield of endothelial transplants from the same donor pool (Müller et al. 2017). To deliver on this promise, it would be important to evaluate whether multiple Quarter-DMEK surgeries are feasible in a clinical and eye bank setting, as it may require adapted logistics to distribute eight grafts from one donor within a short time window. As a first approach, we transplanted Quarter-DMEK grafts in pairs, that is two grafts from each eye of a single 74-year-old male donor (Fig. 1), all of which were prepared by the same eye bank technician (JTL), processed in identical fashion at Amnitrans EyeBank Rotterdam and transplanted into four eyes of four patients (mean age 71 (±8) years; Fig. 1) on the same day by the same surgeon (LB). Quarter-DMEK graft preparation and surgeries were uneventful, except for Case 1 in which the graft inadvertently was partially flushed out and therefore reinserted. At six months postoperative, all eyes reached a best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of ≥0.6 (20/30) and three reached ≥0.8 (20/25). For Cases 1 and 2 (grafts obtained from the right donor eye), endothelial cell density decreased by 80% and 79% at six months, and for Cases 3 and 4 (grafts obtained from the left donor eye), 54% and 66%. Both grafts from the right donor eye showed postoperative graft detachment requiring rebubbling. Our study may be informative in two ways: first, the concept of using multiple endothelial grafts from the same donor cornea proved feasible in a clinical setting. All four eyes obtained an acceptable BCVA and the initial endothelial cell density decrease may be higher than after conventional DMEK, presumably owing to early endothelial cell redistribution over bare areas (Baydoun et al. 2012; Gerber-Hollbach et al. 2016). Second, donor tissue viability may differ between globes obtained from the same donor, even if all tissues were processed in identical manner. For Quarter-DMEK to get widely adopted, it should not only be clinically successful, but also logistically feasible. Processing eight grafts from a single donor might introduce new challenges, because multiple recipient eyes need to be accommodated within a short time window and tissue quality requirements may have to become stricter. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see whether eye banks and surgeons would prefer transplantation of all grafts from the same donor (eye) in the same clinic. On the one hand, eye banks would then require only one shipment while surgeons may benefit from multiple grafts with similar ‘behaviour’, enabling some anticipation on surgery and aftercare. However, paired graft dysfunction may occur, potentially resulting in multiple graft-related complications in case of poor tissue viability. The concept of transplanting multiple grafts from the same donor cornea may require more critical logistics for eye banks/surgeons. In addition, it may allow for unique inner-donor-eye transplant validation to improve surgical outcomes and/or reduce complications by grafting, for example Quarter-DMEK in two phases: if transplantation of a first quadrant shows good graft viability, that is complete attachment and corneal deturgescence, then as a second step, the other quadrants could be released for transplantation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».