Successful Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy in a pediatric patient

Paediatric keratoplasty: choices and conundrums: Table 1

“…The other four reports (10 failed graft, 8 CHEDs, 4 pseudophakic corneal oedema and 1 bee sting injury) showed OCTs with no such irregularity in the optical zone 1 4 6 10…”

“…There are a total of 54 eyes of 45 patients who underwent DSEK for various conditions including from CHED (31 eyes of 23 patients),3 – 10 failed PKP (11 eyes of 11 patients),4 11 pseudophakic–aphakic corneal oedema (6 eyes of 6 patients),1 2 4 12 posterior polymorphous dystrophy (2 eyes of 1 patient),13 peters anomaly (2 eyes of 2 patients),14 Descemet's membrane break after forceps delivery (1 eye of 1 patient)15 and bee sting injury (1 eye of 1 patient) 4. Of these 15 reports, 5 (33%) have preoperative and postoperative optical coherence tomography (OCT) images1 4 6 10 14 and another 5 (33%) have postoperative endothelial cell loss 1 4 8 10 15. Only 3 (20%) studies describe both 1 4 10.…”

“…Of these 15 reports, 5 (33%) have preoperative and postoperative optical coherence tomography (OCT) images1 4 6 10 14 and another 5 (33%) have postoperative endothelial cell loss 1 4 8 10 15. Only 3 (20%) studies describe both 1 4 10. Refraction was available in 12 reports, of which 7 studies reported hyperopic refractive error at the last follow-up.…”

“…This issue has been addressed by very few studies of DSEK in children 1 4 8 10 15. The rate of endothelial cell loss reported varies from 8% to 48% in DSEK for children.…”

Microscope Integrated Optical Coherence Tomography Guided Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty in Congenital Hereditary Endothelial Dystrophy

“…Few studies had thicker corneas at presentation similar to our study with comparable visual outcomes. [33][34][35] The comparative data with other studies published in literature has been compiled in Table 1. The endothelial loss at the final follow-up compared to the baseline was 36.2% (range, 14.7 to 49.3%), which was comparable to other studies in the literature.…”