Advertisement

PentaVision

Corneal Physician

Article

Assessing Fuchs' Cataract Patients for Surgery

A look at the considerations for cataract surgery alone, descemetorhexis without keratoplasty, endothelial transplant alone, and a concomitant procedure

By: Steven C. Schallhorn, M.D., Miel Sundararajan, MD, MS
Corneal Physician November 1, 2021 Vol 25, Issue November 2021 Page(s): 46-48

Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) is a bilateral corneal endothelial disorder, affecting predominantly those in the 4th to 5th decade of life, characterized by accelerated loss of endothelial cells, thickening of Descemet’s membrane, and subsequent dysfunction of the endothelial pump function responsible for maintaining corneal dehydration and clarity.1,2 The resulting corneal edema affects vision and, in time, can lead to epithelial bullae, and subepithelial scarring.1 (See “FECD: An Overview”.) As cataracts and FECD both often become clinically significant at nearly the same time, it is important for the surgeon to determine which condition to address first, in what sequence, and whether they should be addressed simultaneously.

In general, corneal endothelial transplantation can be performed either in conjunction with cataract surgery in FECD patients, or subsequently in a staged fashion. A large, retrospective case series demonstrated no difference in visual acuity or graft survival between Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) (often the procedure of choice) cases performed in phakic versus pseudophakic eyes.3

Here’s a look at the considerations for cataract surgery alone, descemetorhexis without keratoplasty, endothelial transplant alone, and a concomitant procedure in FECD patients. Of note: PK has largely been replaced by DMEK and “nano-thin” Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for FECD patients, as the recovery time and final visual acuity are much better than with PK. Nevertheless, PK is occasionally needed in cases in which FECD has advanced to the point where there is full-thickness corneal scarring.


 

FECD, shown here, must be considered when determining surgical options in cataract patients.IMAGE COURTESY GERAMI SEITZMAN, MD
FECD, shown here, must be considered when determining surgical options in cataract patients.IMAGE COURTESY GERAMI SEITZMAN, MD

Cataract Surgery Alone

Typically, it is felt that cataract surgery should precede endothelial transplantation when possible, so as not to stress the transplanted endothelial cells during phacoemulsification.

Surgeons should always obtain topography and standard biometry in cases of FECD. This is because corneal topography and keratometry in these patients can be irregular, especially in advanced FECD, causing standard keratometry readings to sometimes be misleading. Additionally, bullae or microcystic edema can cause significant distortion of the anterior corneal surface, and stromal edema can mimic corneal ectasia on anterior topography.

Regarding patient candidacy, those who have confluent guttata without overlying edema may be able to undergo cataract removal alone, but need to be warned of the risk of corneal decompensation postoperatively. Likewise, significant guttata alone can be visually symptomatic, causing glare, so it is reasonable to consider combined surgery in these patients.4

In patients who have pre-existing, demonstrated regular astigmatism not due to edema, toric IOLs are a reasonable option, as several case series demonstrate good results in toric IOLs minimizing astigmatism, as long as attention is paid to IOL rotation.5,6

Given the difficulty of accurately predicting the refractive outcome following endothelial transplantation, multifocal IOLs may not be appropriate in FECD patients, as there is a high chance these patients will not achieve spectacle independence. There are reports of successful DMEK following multifocal IOL placement, but at this time only limited case series are available in the literature.7

Descemetorhexis Without Keratoplasty

This procedure is typically reserved for patients who have localized, central guttae with adequate peripheral endothelial cell reserve, generally considered to be a peripheral endothelial cell count greater than 1,000 cells/mm2.8 In these patients, final visual outcome can be similar to that of DMEK, though time to recovery is longer,9 and the edema may fail to clear in up to 37% of cases, necessitating delayed endothelial transplantation.10

Specifically, a 4 mm circular descemetorexhis is performed centrally using a reverse Sinskey hook to start the process. Reverse Utrata forceps are then used to peel the Descemet’s membrane in a circular fashion, taking care not to damage the underlying stroma. Peeling rather than scoring is recommended to preserve the attachment of the peripheral membrane to the underlying stroma, and facilitate endothelial migration into the denuded area.10

The use of a topical rho kinase inhibitor in the postoperative period may hasten corneal clearance, although none of these are currently approved for this use in the United States.11,12

FECD: AN OVERVIEW

FECD is the most common indication for corneal transplantation around the world, comprising 39% of all transplant operations.26 A thorough history can be helpful in the evaluation of patients in whom there is a concern for FECD.

Classically, patients report blurred vision that is worse upon waking, which then improves throughout the day as the cornea deturgesces naturally. FECD patients may also report glare.

In later stages of the disease, if edema has progressed to the formation of epithelial bullae, patients may present with pain upon bullae rupture.

Female gender and smoking history have been associated with a greater risk of advanced disease, and should be assessed.27

Careful slit lamp examination for corneal guttae, representing focal excrescences in Descemet’s membrane, is paramount. Guttae appear as greyish, dimpled foci at the level of the endothelium. The location (central versus peripheral), confluence, and total diameter of guttae should be noted. The presence of guttae peripherally may signify more advanced disease.

The presence of stromal or epithelial edema, epithelial bullae, epithelial defects due to rupture of bullae, and subepithelial fibrosis should be observed as well.

Additional work-up should include specular microscopy, assessing endothelial cell count, and the degree of pleomorphism and polymegathism present to document the extent of the disease, and the need for surgery. Central corneal thickness measurements should also be performed routinely, most importantly for gauging progression of the disease.28 Population data demonstrates variability, and does not offer clear pachymetric cutoffs for the assessment of corneal edema.

Endothelial Transplant Alone

Patients who have more advanced disease, or those desiring more rapid clearing of edema benefit from endothelial transplant. Although there are no hard-and-fast rules for considering endothelial keratoplasty, generally, patients who have bullous edema or increased pachymetry > 625 um do better with endothelial transplantation.13

For these patients, DMEK or DSAEK can be considered.

  • DMEK. This offers advantages in visual outcome in straightforward cases of FECD.14-16 There is a greater risk of graft dislocation after DMEK versus DSAEK,14 and the need for postoperative re-bubbling is greater after DMEK,17 although this has been decreased with the use of 20% sulfer hexafluoride gas for tamponade.16
  • DSAEK. There is some indication that “nano-thin” DSAEK with grafts less than 50 um may offer similar visual outcomes to DMEK.17 Additionally, unstable anterior chamber dynamics, precluding the shallowing required to unroll the DMEK graft, would favor DSAEK as the procedure of choice.

For instance, in vitrectomized eyes, it can be difficult to obtain the level of shallowing required to position the DMEK graft correctly, and postoperative collapse of the anterior chamber may prompt graft dislocation.18 If there is any chance of vitreous prolapse with shallowing of the anterior chamber, DSAEK may be a better choice, with or without the preceding vitrectomy.

The postoperative complications for both procedures include pupillary block glaucoma, for which an inferior peripheral iridotomy can be created pre- or intraoperatively 19

Graft failure and rejection are also potential complications, and their rates are similar in both operations.20 Cystoid macular edema (CME) has been reported after both DMEK and DSAEK as well. One study showed that 13.0% of eyes developed CME within 6 months of DMEK, and that visual outcomes were comparable with the remaining patients at 6 months with only medical treatment.21 Another study revealed iris damage and re-bubbling as risk factors for the development of CME status post-DMEK.22

Concomitant Procedure

Generally, central corneal thickness > 640 μm and/or endothelial cell count < 1000/mm2 may be suggestive of corneal decompensation with intraocular surgery.23

Patients complaining of morning visual blur that improves throughout the day are good candidates for simultaneous or staged endothelial transplantation, as they already have developed edema. Likewise, patients with evidence of stromal edema on examination, grade 5 corneal guttata, or epithelial bullae should also be offered combined surgery.

Care should be taken to acquire accurate biometry calculations, as well as corneal topography preoperatively, if concomitant cataract surgery is planned. Endothelial transplantation does induce a hyperopic shift due to changes in corneal refractive power, so this should be accounted for in IOL selection.24 A refractive target of -0.75 D may be sufficient to overcome this shift, and yield an emmetropic result.25

Progress

There has been a great deal of advancement in both endothelial transplantation and IOL technology over the last two decades. With an abundance of options available, FECD patients are well served. Moreover, further innovations are on the horizon. CP

References

  1. Matthaei M, Hribek A, Clahsen T, Bachmann B, Cursiefen C, Jun AS. Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy: clinical, genetic, pathophysiologic, and therapeutic aspects. Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2019;5:151-175.
  2. Krachmer, Mannis and Holland, Cornea, 3rd Edition. Volume 1, Chapter 1: Cornea and Sclera: Anatomy and Physiology, p 3, 2011, Elsevier.
  3. Birbal RS, Baydoun L, Ham L, et al. Effect of surgical indication and preoperative lens status on Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;212:79-87
  4. Watanabe S, Oie Y, Fujimoto H, et al. Relationship between corneal guttae and quality of vision in patients with mild Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(10):2103-2109.
  5. Yokogawa H, Sanchez PJ, Mayko ZM, Straiko MD, Terry MA. Astigmatism correction with toric intraocular lenses in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty triple procedures. Cornea. 2017;36(3):269-274.
  6. Trindade BLC, Garcia JC, Nogueira LR. Toric IOL in combined DMEK and cataract surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:1511-1516.
  7. Pereira NC, Diniz ER, Ghanem RC, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in multifocal pseudophakic eyes. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2018;81(3):183-187.
  8. Moloney G, Petsoglou C, Ball M, et al. Descemetorhexis without grafting for fuchs endothelial dystrophy-supplementation with topical ripasudil. Cornea. 2017;36(6):642-648.
  9. Huang MJ, Kane S, Dhaliwal DK. Descemetorhexis without endothelial keratoplasty versus DMEK for treatment of Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy. Cornea. 2018;37(12):1479-1483.
  10. Garcerant D, Hirnschall N, Toalster N, Zhu M, Wen L, Moloney G. Descemet’s stripping without endothelial keratoplasty. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2019;30(4):275-285.
  11. Davies E, Jurkunas U, Pineda R. Pilot study of corneal clearance with the use of a Rho-kinase inhibitor after descemetorhexis without endothelial keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy. Cornea. 2021;40(7):899-902.
  12. Borkar DS, Veldman P, Colby KA. Treatment of Fuchs endothelial dystrophy by Descemet stripping without endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2016;35(10):1267-1273.
  13. Stuart AJ, Romano V, Virgili G, Shortt AJ. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;6(6):CD012097.
  14. Chamberlain W, Lin CC, Austin A, et al. Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: a randomized trial comparing ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(1):19-26.
  15. Dunker SL, Dickman MM, Wisse RPL, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2020;127(9):1152-1159.
  16. von Marchtaler PV, Weller JM, Kruse FE, Tourtas T. Air versus sulfur hexafluoride gas tamponade in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a fellow eye comparison. Cornea. 2018;37(1):15-19.
  17. Kurji KH, Cheung AY, Eslani M, et al. Comparison of visual acuity outcomes between nanothin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2018;37(10):1226-1231.
  18. Phylactou M, Matarazzo F, Din N, Maurino V. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in vitrectomized eyes: a case series of outcomes and complications. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(7):2425-2432.
  19. Schaub F, Enders P, Snijders K, et al. One-year outcome after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) comparing sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6) 20% versus 100% air for anterior chamber tamponade. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(7):902-908.
  20. Pavlovic I, Shajari M, Herrmann E, Schmack I, Lencova A, Kohnen T. Meta-analysis of postoperative outcome parameters comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2017;36(12):1445-1451.
  21. Heinzelmann S, Maier P, Böhringer D, Hüther S, Eberwein P, Reinhard T. Cystoid macular oedema following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015 Jan;99(1):98-102.
  22. Inoda S, Hayashi T, Takahashi H, et al. Risk factors for cystoid macular edema after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2019;38(7):820-824.
  23. Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy – Europe. American Academy of Ophthalmology. November 2015. https://www.aao.org/topic-detail/fuchs-endothelial-dystrophy-europe . Accessed August 11, 2021.
  24. Alnawaiseh M, Rosentreter A, Eter N, Zumhagen L. Changes in corneal refractive power for patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy after DMEK. Cornea. 2016;35(8):1073-1077.
  25. Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Horn FK, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty combined with phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation: advanced triple procedure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(1):47-55.e2.
  26. Gain P, Jullienne R, He Z, et al. Global survey of corneal transplantation and eye banking. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(2):167-173
  27. Zhang X, Igo RP Jr, Fondran J, et al. Association of smoking and other risk factors with Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy severity and corneal thickness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(8):5829-5835.
  28. Kopplin LJ, Przepyszny K, Schmotzer B, et al. Relationship of Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy severity to central corneal thickness. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(4):433-439.

 

DR. SCHALHORN practices at the University of California San Francisco, where she treats diseases of the cornea. In addition to performing corneal transplants and cataract surgery, she performs refractive surgeries, including LASIK and PRK, to correct common vision problems, such as nearsightedness. Disclosures: Zeiss, Allergan, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, and Long Bridge Medical.

 

 

DR. SUNDARARAJAN is an assistant professor at the University of Washington. She graduated from Baylor College Of Medicine in 2015.

 

What to Read Next