Corneal endothelial cell dysfunction: etiologies and management

Abstract

A transparent cornea is essential for the formation of a clear image on the retina. The human cornea is arranged into well-organized layers, and each layer plays a significant role in maintaining the transparency and viability of the tissue. The endothelium has both barrier and pump functions, which are important for the maintenance of corneal clarity. Many etiologies, including Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy, surgical trauma, and congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy, lead to endothelial cell dysfunction. The main treatment for corneal decompensation is replacement of the abnormal corneal layers with normal donor tissue. Nowadays, the trend is to perform selective endothelial keratoplasty, including Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty, to manage corneal endothelial dysfunction. This selective approach has several advantages over penetrating keratoplasty, including rapid recovery of visual acuity, less likelihood of graft rejection, and better patient satisfaction. However, the global limitation in the supply of donor corneas is becoming an increasing challenge, necessitating alternatives to reduce this demand. Consequently, in vitro expansion of human corneal endothelial cells is evolving as a sustainable choice. This method is intended to prepare corneal endothelial cells in vitro that can be transferred to the eye. Herein, we describe the etiologies and manifestations of human corneal endothelial cell dysfunction. We also summarize the available options for as well as recent developments in the management of corneal endothelial dysfunction.

Keywords

corneal endothelial dysfunction etiologies human corneal endothelium management

Introduction

The human cornea is a transparent avascular tissue that transmits light to the retina. The cornea is arranged into well-organized layers, and each layer plays a significant role in maintaining the transparency and viability of the tissue. These layers include the epithelium, Bowman’s layer, the stroma, Descemet’s membrane, and the endothelium (Figure 1). Transparency of the corneal stroma is preserved by the critical spacing and crystalline organization of collagen fibers and a relative state of dehydration.¹ The corneal endothelium, located at the basement (Descemet’s) membrane, is the innermost corneal layer (Figure 1).² This layer has barrier and pump functions that are important for corneal clarity maintenance.³ Unlike the epithelium, which has self-renewing capacity, the endothelium is not known to proliferate.^4,5 Therefore, cell damage caused by different pathologies stimulates the remaining endothelial cells to enlarge and migrate to cover any defects, thereby maintaining corneal transparency.

Figure 1.

The normal cornea consists of five layers, including the epithelium, Bowman’s layer, stroma, Descemet’s membrane, and endothelium. The endothelial cells form a single hexagonal monolayer located in the posterior cornea (arrow; hematoxylin and eosin staining, 10×).

Corneal endothelial decompensation leads to blurred vision and discomfort or even severe pain. Although medical therapy can be used to relieve symptoms, the only definitive treatment for corneal endothelial dysfunction is corneal transplantation, which can be performed in the form of full-thickness penetrating keratoplasty (PK) or selective keratoplasty. Selective endothelial keratoplasty has become popular in corneal endothelial dysfunction management owing to quicker visual rehabilitation and lower complication rate. Despite this, the global limitation in the supply of donor corneas is becoming a growing challenge, necessitating alternatives to reduce the demand.⁶ One option involves culturing corneal endothelial cells in the laboratory and then transplanting these cells into patients. Herein, we describe the etiologies and clinical manifestations of human corneal endothelial cell dysfunction and summarize the options and recent developments in the management of corneal endothelial dysfunction.

Review criteria

A PubMed review was performed using the search terms ‘human cornea’, ‘endothelial cell’, ‘endothelium’, ‘dysfunction’, ‘corneal edema’, and ‘decompensated cornea’. All publications on ‘corneal endothelial dysfunction’ published from 1960 to 2017 were screened. This review includes human and animal studies that were published in full and in the English language.

Physiology and function of human corneal endothelial cells

Human corneal endothelial cells are located at the posterior cornea and form a single hexagonal monolayer, which is formed by the first wave of migration of neural crest cells that derive from the edge of the invaginating optic cup.⁷ The two main roles of corneal endothelial cells are barrier function, which is mediated by proteins such as zonula occludens-1, and pump function, which is mediated by an active (Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase) pump.⁸ The endothelial cell layer comprises an incomplete zonula occludens that allows molecules to enter the corneal stroma from the anterior chamber. The active Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase pump osmotically draws water and ions from the corneal stroma into the aqueous humor, which helps to maintain corneal thickness and transparency.^9,10

Corneal endothelial cells get arrested in the G1 phase of the cell cycle and do not typically proliferate and regenerate in vivo.^11,12 Therefore, loss of corneal endothelial cells results in compensatory enlargement and migration of the residual cells. It is possible that endothelial stem cells are located in the corneal periphery and retain a high regenerative capacity under laboratory conditions.¹³

Clinical presentations

Corneal endothelial decompensation leads to ‘overhydration’ of the cornea, known as corneal edema, or in the advanced stage, bullous keratopathy. The patient may be asymptomatic in the early stage. As the corneal edema progresses, there may be glare or blurred vision caused by folds in Descemet’s membrane and increased stromal thickness. Eventually, a bulla forms, which leads to reduced visual acuity, and discomfort, and even severe pain. Long-standing corneal edema also predisposes to complications including corneal vascularization, infection, and scarring (Figure 2).¹⁴

Figure 2.

Long-standing corneal edema. Severe corneal opacity and scarring are evident and prevent the visualization of the details of the iris.

Etiologies

Etiologies that can cause corneal decompensation include Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD), posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy (PPCD), aphakic or pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (ABK/PBK), endothelial dysfunction caused by penetrating or blunt trauma, congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy (CHED), iridocorneal endothelial (ICE) syndrome, refractory glaucoma, previous failed corneal grafts, and herpes simplex virus endotheliitis. The most common primary etiology of corneal endothelial dysfunction is FECD.^15–17 The most common secondary etiology of corneal edema is PBK, reflecting the popularity of cataract surgery and intraocular lens implantation in the past two to three decades.¹⁸ Glaucoma and its treatment (medical and surgical) have deleterious effects on the corneal endothelium and can reduce the survival of corneal grafts.^19,20

Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy

FECD is a dystrophy affecting the corneal endothelium. FECD has a regional prevalence that varies from 3.8% to 11% in individuals older than 40 years and is the primary indication for keratoplasty in the United States.^15–17 This dystrophy is characterized by a progressive decrease in endothelial cell count, alterations in the shape and size of the residual cells, and formation of guttae (Figure 3). As the disease progresses, the endothelial cell count decreases until the residual cells are no longer capable of maintaining corneal deturgescence, resulting in corneal clouding and decreased vision.²¹

Figure 3.

Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy. (a) In the slit of light seen passing through the cornea from left (anterior surface) to right (posterior surface), the beaten-metal appearance of guttae is appreciated posteriorly in light reflected from Descemet’s membrane. (b) The anterior segment photograph of cornea with specular reflection illustrates the typical beaten-metal appearance. The dark spots in the photograph demonstrate the areas in which the endothelial cells have been lost.

FECD usually advances through four stages that span two to three decades.^22,23 The patient is asymptomatic in stage 1 although slit-lamp biomicroscopy reveals nonconfluent guttae. In stage 2, the guttae coalesce, with an increase in polymegathism and pleomorphism along with loss of endothelial cells. In stage 3, the function of the endothelial pump is compromised and corneal edema is evident. In stage 4, long-standing edema results in corneal haziness and scarring that reduces visual acuity. Another grading scale devised by Krachmer and colleagues²⁴ scores disease severity based mainly on the number and distribution of guttae. A score of 1, which reflects asymptomatic disease, is defined as >12 central nonconfluent cornea guttae. A cluster (1–2 mm) of confluent central guttae is graded as 2. Grade 3 is defined as 2–5 mm of confluent central corneal guttae, and grade 4 is defined as >5 mm of confluent central guttae. Stromal or epithelial edema with >5 mm of confluent central guttae is graded as 5.²⁴

This dystrophy is caused by a complex combination of environmental and genetic factors. FECD can be categorized as early-onset or late-onset. Early-onset FECD, which is well defined both genetically and clinically, is a rare and almost always familial disease with autosomal-dominant inheritance.²⁵ The late-onset form, which accounts for the majority of patients, seems to have an autosomal-dominant transmission pattern with incomplete penetrance. This form of the disease usually presents in the fifth decade of life and progresses over the subsequent two to three decades. Late-onset FECD is more genetically heterogeneous than the early-onset form, and only half of these patients show family clustering.^26,27 The early-onset form of FECD has been linked to mutations in the COL8A2 gene.²⁶ The loci recognized for the late-onset form of the disease are FCD1, FCD2, FCD3, and FCD4.^27–30

Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy

Although the introduction of new phacoemulsification techniques, optical viscoelastic materials, and intraocular lenses have decreased the risk of corneal edema following cataract surgery, PBK is still one of the most common causes of corneal edema.¹⁸ Several mechanisms can cause damage to the endothelium during cataract surgery. Some patients have a known endothelial disease prior to undergoing cataract surgery, which increases the risk of developing persistent corneal edema immediately after surgery.³¹ The type of surgery also influences postoperative corneal decompensation risk; this risk is lower for phacoemulsification than for other techniques used in cataract surgery, particularly extracapsular cataract extraction.³¹ The incidence of PBK with the current technique used for cataract surgery and implantation of an intraocular lens in the posterior chamber ranges from 1% to 2%.³¹ Certain intraocular lens designs, particularly angle-supported anterior chamber lenses, increase the risk of bullous keratopathy (Figure 4). The incidence of corneal decompensation caused by angle-supported anterior chamber lenses may be up to 10%.³² Cell loss associated with this type of lens is probably caused by contact between the lens and the endothelial cells located at the corneal periphery as well as chronic inflammation.

Figure 4.

Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Severe corneal edema in an eye implanted with an angle-supported anterior chamber intraocular lens.

Congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy

CHED is a rare dystrophy of the corneal endothelial layer that causes corneal edema at an early age and consists of two types.³³ CHED1 is transmitted in an autosomal-dominant manner and starts within the first few years of life, presenting with progressive stromal opacity. CHED1 prevalence is <1/1,000,000. CHED2 is an autosomal-recessive disease and presents with stromal opacity at birth or shortly thereafter. Epidemiologic data regarding its incidence or prevalence are unavailable. It has been suggested that CHED1 is a type of PPCD with an early onset of corneal decompensation.³⁴ Gene analyses, including DNA extraction from peripheral blood samples and polymerase chain reaction for screening mutations, demonstrate that the majority of patients with CHED2 have mutations in a transmembrane protein in the family of bicarbonate transporters (SLC4A11).^35,36

The hallmark of CHED2 is corneal opacification and edema that presents at birth or shortly thereafter (Figure 5). Varying degrees of amblyopia and nystagmus are usually present in patients with more severe forms of the disease. Inflammation, epiphora, and photophobia are not noticeable characteristics. In contrast, CHED1 presents with progressive stromal edema and opacification that starts in the first few years of life. Epiphora and photophobia are more common in CHED1. Both types of CHED include thickening of Descemet’s membrane. However, guttae are not evident. The normal morphology of the endothelial cells is changed or absent. When endothelium can be detected by confocal or specular microscopy, the endothelial cells are decreased in number and are fibrotic.

Figure 5.

(a) Clinical photograph of a girl with congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy type 2 demonstrating bluish-gray ground-glass appearance of the right cornea. The left eye that underwent PK demonstrates a failing graft. (b) The slit beam highlights the uniform thickening of the cornea in the right eye.

Posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy

PPCD is a rare, bilateral, autosomal-dominant disease characterized by a number of corneal abnormalities, ranging from asymptomatic endothelial irregularities to significant corneal edema and glaucoma.^37,38 The prevalence of this form of corneal dystrophy is unknown. However, it has been reported that at least 1 in 100,000 inhabitants of the Czech Republic are affected by this dystrophy.³⁹ Specular microscopy may show typical geographic-shaped, discrete, gray lesions as well as isolated grouped vesicles and broad bands with scalloped borders. Pupil abnormalities and alterations in the iris are also observed. The condition manifests variably, even in members of the same family. PPCD typically manifests within the first decade of life and is often asymptomatic. At any time later in life, depending on disease progresses, patients may develop varying degrees of photophobia, decreased vision, and sectorial corneal clouding, necessitating corneal transplantation in nearly 25% of cases.^38,40,41 Although an abnormally thickened Descemet’s membrane and stromal edema may cause pseudoelevation of intraocular pressure, true glaucoma from angle closure may occur at any stage of life in 14% of affected patients.^37,38

Endothelial cells from corneas with PPCD demonstrate epithelial-like features, including multicellular stratification and expression of epithelial cell markers.^42,43 Descemet’s membrane shows variable abnormal thickening in this corneal dystrophy. Stromal and epithelial corneal edema may occur diffusely or sectorally because the dystrophic endothelial cells become inefficient at pumping fluid out of the corneal stroma.^37,38

Several genetic mutations have been implicated in PPCD. PPCD1 is thought to result from a heterozygous mutation in the promoter of the OVOL2 gene (616441) on chromosome 20p11. PPCD2 (609140) is a mutation in the COL8A2 gene (120252) on chromosome 1p34.3 and PPCD3 (609141) is a mutation in the ZEB1 gene (189909) on chromosome 10p.⁴⁴

ICE syndrome

ICE syndrome is a rare corneal disease characterized by structural and proliferative abnormalities of endothelial cells, progressive iridocorneal adhesion, and iris anomalies, including atrophy and hole formation.⁴⁵ Common clinical findings are stromal edema, iris atrophy, secondary glaucoma, and pupillary anomalies that vary from distortion to polycoria (Figure 6). Corneal edema and secondary glaucoma are the most common causes of reduced vision in individuals with ICE syndrome.⁴⁶ The major subtypes of this disease include Chandler syndrome, Cogan-Reese syndrome, and progressive iris atrophy.⁴⁷ The syndrome that typically affects adults (more often women in the third to fifth decades of life) is sporadic in presentation and usually unilateral. Eventually, ICE syndrome severely compromises visual function if not correctly treated.⁴⁵ Even when patients with ICE syndrome are treated promptly, surgical interventions have variable success rates.

Figure 6.

(a) Iridocorneal endothelial syndrome, characterized by atrophy of the iris, multiple atrophic holes, and corectopia. (b) Cogan-Reese syndrome, characterized by iridocorneal adhesion, diffuse nevi, and ectropion uveae.

High-magnification slit-lamp biomicroscopy can show a fine, ‘hammered-silver’, or ‘beaten-bronze’ appearance of the endothelium. Changes in the endothelium in ICE syndrome may be visualized and further evaluated by specular microscopy and in vivo corneal confocal microscopy.⁴⁸

The etiology of ICE syndrome is still largely unknown. However, inflammation⁴⁹ and viral infections (e.g. Epstein-Barr virus and herpes simplex virus)^50,51 have been suggested as the etiologies of the disease. The corneal endothelium is primarily affected in the ICE syndrome and shows proliferative and structural abnormalities and an ability to migrate into the surrounding tissues. Specular microscopy shows morphologic changes in the size and shape of endothelial cells, which resemble epithelial cells even at the earliest stages.^52–54 Corneal edema is caused by altered endothelial cell function and abnormalities in the endothelial cell barrier. The abnormal endothelial cells in ICE syndrome migrate posteriorly beyond the Schwalbe line to obstruct the iridocorneal angle and into the anterior chamber to cover the iris, where they form an abnormal basement membrane that eventually contracts, triggering an abnormal pupil shape, atrophic damage to the iris, and formation of synechiae between adjacent structures (Figure 6).⁵⁵ The angle obstruction causes an increase in intraocular pressure and consequent development of glaucoma in 46–82% of patients with ICE syndrome.⁴⁶

Therapeutic approaches other than corneal transplantation

Keratoplasty is the standard treatment for patients with corneal decompensation because it provides visual recovery and symptomatic relief. However, in eyes with poor visual potential or when donor tissue is not accessible for keratoplasty, other approaches should be considered to reduce pain and discomfort. The options available in these cases are hypertonic saline eye drops, bandage contact lenses, phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK), anterior stromal puncture, amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT), and conjunctival flaps. Depending on the severity of corneal edema, a combination of the above treatments can be used. New potential approaches consist of collagen cross-linking (CXL) and topical Rho-associated kinase inhibitors. These treatments aim to reduce the discomfort and pain caused by corneal edema and, if possible, improve vision. However, the efficacy and safety of these treatment options have not been evaluated in clinical trials.

Osmotic solutions

Topical 5% hypertonic sodium chloride (eye drops and ointment) is useful in the early stage of corneal decompensation to reduce corneal thickness and improve visual acuity but is not effective in the advanced stage of the disease.⁵⁶ Moreover, some patients cannot tolerate the eye drops. A combination of a bandage contact lens and frequent hypertonic saline eye drops may be a better choice for improving the patient’s symptoms as well as vision.⁵⁷ Other osmotic agents, such as colloidal dextran polysaccharide solution, are not effective in the management of corneal decompensation.⁵⁸

Bandage contact lenses

Bandage contact lenses have long been used in patients with bullous keratopathy.^59,60 Contact lenses can be used in combination with hypertonic preservative-free saline to reduce patient discomfort and improve visual acuity more effectively.⁵⁷ Two types of silicone hydrogel bandage contact lenses have been compared with conventional (Sauflon 85%) lenses for their ability to alleviate pain and discomfort in patients with corneal decompensation.⁶¹ After 1 month of fitting, the silicone hydrogel lenses were significantly better than the Sauflon 85% lenses with respect to patient comfort.⁶¹ However, the three lenses were comparable in terms of pain relief. There was no significant difference in buildup of deposits, movement of the lens, or fit between the groups.⁶¹

Anterior stromal puncture

Anterior stromal puncture is a rapid repeatable procedure that can significantly reduce ocular discomfort in patients with bullous keratopathy.^62,63 However, it is effective in patients with localized stromal edema and can cause corneal vascularization and scarring.⁶³ Furthermore, the density and depth of all the punctures cannot be quantified. Although 25G and 26G needles have been used for anterior stromal puncture,^62,63 some surgeons prefer to use a large-bore 20G needle for this purpose.⁶⁴ If corneal transplantation is to be performed in the future, the periphery of the cornea should be spared to prevent corneal vascularization.⁶⁴

This procedure leads to an increase in the expression of extracellular proteins, including fibronectin, laminin, and type IV collagen, in the corneal stroma.⁶⁵ These substances are essential for the adhesion of the epithelium to the underlying stroma. The efficacy and safety of this procedure have not been evaluated in patients with corneal decompensation. Moreover, the impact of this procedure on subsequent donor corneal graft has not been evaluated.

Phototherapeutic keratectomy

PTK is effective in reducing discomfort and pain in individuals with a decompensated cornea.^66–68 The procedure can be repeated if indicated. It is assumed that PTK can remove the abnormal basement membrane, leading to better healing of the corneal epithelium.⁶⁹ Furthermore, corneal thinning after this procedure can decrease epithelial edema by reducing the osmotic load of the corneal stroma, thereby enhancing the dehydration efficacy of the residual endothelium.⁷⁰ Deep PTK (to a stromal thickness of 25%) was reported to be more effective than superficial PTK (8–25 µm) or intermediate PTK (50–100 µm) for pain reduction.⁷⁰ This effect is attributable to greater destruction of the corneal neural plexus or increased scar formation caused by a deeper ablation.⁷⁰ This procedure is an appropriate option for the management of patients with symptomatic corneal edema, especially as a temporary intervention for those awaiting keratoplasty. The main limitation of this treatment is its cost.

Gundersen conjunctival flap

A Gundersen conjunctival flap covers the entire cornea. In this procedure, the bulbar conjunctiva is dissected and mobilized from the underlying Tenon’s capsule (Figure 7).⁷¹ This flap can significantly alleviate pain in patients with bullous keratopathy by covering the exposed corneal nerve endings with an intact surface. The procedure can be combined with AMT to alleviate pain in patients with symptomatic corneal edema.⁷²

Figure 7.

A Gundersen conjunctival flap. The cornea is completely covered by an intact layer of bulbar conjunctiva.

Postoperative complications include a shortened fornix, retraction of the flap, and potential loss of healthy conjunctiva for subsequent trabeculectomy. The flap retraction rate varies from 10% to 15%. This complication results from excessive traction on the flap, buttonholes, and conjunctival melts because of epithelial ingrowth.⁷² The conjunctival flap can be removed for a subsequent corneal transplant. However, the vascularized bed that remains after flap removal increases the risk of subsequent graft rejection. There is also a risk of limbal stem cell deficiency necessitating limbal autografts.⁷² Therefore, a conjunctival flap is more appropriate for eyes with poor visual potential.

Amniotic membrane transplantation

AMT is an option for individuals awaiting keratoplasty and can reduce pain in patients with bullous keratopathy.^73–77 AMT is helpful in patients with persistent epithelial defects associated with long-standing corneal edema (Figure 8). The amniotic membrane allows the epithelial cells to grow and serves as a bandage for an abnormal cornea.⁷⁸ In this situation, the amniotic membrane melts within weeks. The limitation of AMT is that the amniotic membrane may remain in situ and reduce visualization of the anterior segment and retina because of its opacity. Studies have found that AMT is comparable with anterior stromal puncture⁷⁹ and PTK⁸⁰ in terms of reducing patient discomfort. AMT can be combined with other options, including PTK, to accelerate corneal epithelial healing,⁸¹ the Gundersen conjunctival flap,⁷² and anterior stromal puncture.^82,83 It is not known whether AMT exacerbates corneal vascularization or whether it reduces the longevity of a future corneal transplant.

Figure 8.

Amniotic membrane transplantation for management of pain and discomfort in a patient with bullous keratopathy.

Collagen cross-linking

CXL can improve visual acuity, minimize ocular discomfort, and delay the need for corneal transplantation in patients with corneal edema.⁸⁴ CXL makes the collagen fibers in the anterior corneal stroma more compact and organized, but this effect is diminished in severe corneal edema.⁸⁵ After CXL in a decompensated cornea, the transendothelial inflow and stromal imbibition pressure decrease, leading to a decrease in corneal edema.⁸⁶ Previous studies have demonstrated a significant increase in visual acuity and symptomatic improvement in individuals with PBK immediately following CXL.^87–90 However, this effect was diminished by 3–6 months postoperatively.^87–90 These results indicate that the effect of this treatment decreases with time and is dependent on the severity of edema.⁸⁸ Other studies have not achieved such good results and found CXL to be ineffective in the management of eyes with corneal edema.^91,92

Rho-associated kinase inhibition

The Rho/Rho-kinase (ROCK) pathway regulates cell migration and proliferation as well as apoptosis.^93–96 Y-27632, a selective ROCK inhibitor, can promote adhesion and proliferation of corneal endothelial cells by diminishing dissociation-induced apoptosis.^97–99 This agent can be used in vivo as eye drops or ex vivo to expand human corneal endothelial cells in culture medium. In a clinical study, transcorneal freezing was performed using a stainless steel rod with a diameter of 2 mm in eight eyes in eight patients with corneal decompensation, caused by late-onset FECD, argon laser iridotomy-induced bullous keratopathy, or keratopathy in pseudoexfoliation syndrome.¹⁰⁰ Y-27632 eye drops were then applied six times daily for 1 week. Three out of four eyes with central corneal edema caused by FECD demonstrated a significant decrease in central pachymetry, which was maintained over time.¹⁰⁰ The remaining four eyes with diffuse corneal edema had no improvement in visual acuity or corneal pachymetry.¹⁰⁰ Human corneal endothelial cells did not demonstrate any cell alterations or toxicity after treatment with a ROCK inhibitor.¹⁰⁰ Therefore, topical ROCK inhibition can be used as an alternative to corneal transplantation in patients with early corneal decompensation.

Recently, cultured human corneal endothelial cells supplemented with a ROCK inhibitor were injected into the anterior chamber in 11 eyes with PBK. After 24 weeks of injection, all corneas were clear and nine eyes achieved an improvement in best-corrected visual acuity of more than two lines.¹⁰¹ Use of Y-27632 may only be appropriate for cultures of human corneal endothelial cells harvested from younger donors, given that addition of this agent was not effective in cultures established using older donors.^102,103 The combination of hyaluronic acid and Y-27632 can improve the efficiency of cell adhesion as a result of force attachment, enabling culture of endothelial cells from older donor corneas.¹⁰⁴

Corneal transplantation

PK has been the standard keratoplasty technique used to replace poor endothelium since corneal grafting became a routine operation in the 1950s. However, the undesirable complications of full-thickness keratoplasty are now well recognized and include prolonged visual rehabilitation, high postoperative astigmatism, and vulnerability to trauma.¹⁰⁵ Novel posterior lamellar keratoplasty techniques have recently been developed. These techniques include Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). These methods of endothelial keratoplasty share the advantage of the lack of a large full-thickness wound created during PK, which results in a stable and less vulnerable eye with no corneal sutures, less induction of astigmatism, and more rapid visual rehabilitation. Currently, endothelial keratoplasty can be used to treat any cause of corneal endothelial dysfunction, including FECD, CHED, PPCD, ICE syndrome, ABK/PBK, and failed PK. PK may still be indicated in patients with severe end-stage corneal edema and deep stromal scarring.

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty

DSAEK is currently the most commonly used endothelial keratoplasty technique (Figure 9).¹⁰⁶ DSAEK provides rapid and predictable visual rehabilitation, with better uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) than PK. A mean CDVA of ⩾20/40 is usually obtained within 3–6 months of DSAEK.¹⁰⁷ The mean CDVA has been reported to vary between 20/33 and 20/66 in different reports, with postoperative examination between 3 and 30 months after DSAEK.^108–117 In comparison, the proportions of individuals obtaining a CDVA ⩾20/40 have varied from 47% to 65% for FECD and from 20% to 40% for ABK/PBK in several large PK series that had a follow-up duration between 2 and 8 years.^105,118,119 PK can lead to more eyes with a visual acuity correctable to 20/20. However, this level of CDVA is usually achieved with the use of a rigid gas-permeable contact lens.^105,118,119

Figure 9.

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty was performed in an eye with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. The graft and overlying recipient cornea are crystal clear.

A chief advantage of DSAEK is that it causes minimal changes in spherical equivalent and astigmatism.¹²⁰ DSAEK usually induces hyperopia between 0.7 and 1.5 D, with a median of 1.2 D.^106,115,116 This hyperopic shift is likely caused by the variation in thickness of the lenticule, which results in a reduction in total corneal power.^121,122 The mean surgically induced astigmatism after DSAEK is minimal at a median of +0.1 D.^{106,113,115,116,121–123}

Endothelial cell loss varies from 13% to 54% in the 6 months after DSAEK^{109,116,124–128} and from 15.6% to 61% in the first year after the procedure.^{108,124,129–131} Endothelial cell loss can be as high as 89% at 5 years.¹³² In comparison, the mean reduction in endothelial cell density following PK varies from 11% to 29% in the first 6 months,^133–135 from 16% to 45% at 1 year,^133–136 from 29% to 54% at 2 years,^133,136,137 and is 70% at 5 years.¹³⁸ The majority of the endothelial cell loss in DSAEK takes place during the first 6 months as a result of surgical trauma.¹³² Other factors can also influence postoperative endothelial cell density after DSAEK. The Cornea Preservation Time Study Group investigated the effect of duration of donor preservation in cold storage medium on endothelial cell loss 3 years after successful DSAEK and found that cell loss 3 years after DSAEK was greater with longer preservation time.¹³⁹ However, cell loss was not affected by preservation for up to 13 days.¹³⁹

Early DSAEK studies indicate that the graft survival rate is comparable with that of PK and may be even higher.¹⁴⁰ Graft survival rates between 55% and 100% one year after DSAEK have been reported.^{106,108,110,113,123,130,131,141,142} This wide range of clear grafts reflects the results reported by surgeons who were in their learning curve. Excluding those reports, the range of graft survival at 1 year is 94–100%.¹³² This range of rates is comparable with that reported for PK at 1 year (89–95%).^{105,143–146} The graft survival rate after DSAEK is lower in eyes with ABK/PBK than in those with FECD and in eyes in which operative complications such as inverted graft occurred.¹⁴⁷ Furthermore, the risk of graft failure may be higher in recipient eyes that receive corneas from donors with diabetes.¹⁴⁷ Diabetes has adverse biochemical, morphologic, and functional effects on the corneal endothelium, resulting in a decrease in the graft survival rate after DSAEK.¹⁴⁷ Therefore, the increasing frequency of diabetes in the aging population may affect the donor pool.¹⁴⁸ It has also been noted that diabetes may make preparation of the tissue for DMEK more difficult.¹⁴⁹

The most common reason for regrafting after DSAEK is unsatisfactory vision (2.7%).¹⁵⁰ In contrast, the most common reasons for PK graft failure are ocular surface disease, glaucoma, and graft rejection.¹⁴⁵ The reasons for low CDVA after DSAEK include donor folds with visual axis involvement, nonuniform donor graft thickness, and subepithelial, stromal, or interface opacities.^151,152

Donor dislocation, that is, lack of attachment between the recipient stroma and donor lenticule, is the most frequently reported complication after DSAEK and occurs at a rate that ranges from as low as 0% to as high as 82%.^{108–112,121,141} A repeat air injection is generally required to manage this complication. Endothelial cell loss may be greater in dislocated grafts than in grafts that remain attached.^130,131 Rebubbling is usually performed for complete detachments because partial detachment of the donor lenticule may resolve spontaneously.¹⁵³

Graft rejection rates after DSAEK vary from 0% to 45.5% during follow-up of 3–24 months.^{108–112,115,116,154} The estimated risk of a first rejection episode after DSAEK is 7.6% by 1 year and 12% by 2 years.¹⁵⁵ The graft rejection rate in endothelial keratoplasty is significantly lower than that in PK, which is attributable to the prolonged use of corticosteroid eye drops following endothelial keratoplasty.¹⁵⁴ Corticosteroids are frequently tapered off within the months following PK to allow wound healing before suture removal, whereas this is not an issue with DSAEK.

Donor lenticules for DSAEK can be prepared by surgeons intraoperatively or predissected by eye bank operators. Donor grafts prepared by surgeons can sometimes result in failure because of perforation or irregular cuts. Precut tissues prepared by an eye bank have the advantages of higher operating room efficiency and less wastage of tissue.¹⁵⁶ In addition, tissue for endothelial keratoplasty can be preloaded by an eye bank. Ruzza and colleagues¹⁵⁶ described a method of preserving and delivering posterior lenticules for DSAEK in which the donor tissue was precut, punched, loaded into a three-dimensional printed smart storage glide, and then preserved in transport medium. After 7 days of preservation, they demonstrated an average endothelial cell loss of 2.3% and an increase in lenticule thickness by 30%, with no apoptosis of endothelial cells.¹⁵⁶

Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty

DMEK is a further refinement of posterior lamellar keratoplasty in which only donor Descemet’s membrane and endothelial cells are transplanted. This procedure essentially substitutes for the same tissue that is removed from the recipient’s cornea and thus exactly replicates the corneal anatomy.¹⁵⁷ Donor Descemet’s membrane can be stripped manually from the stroma.^157–159 However, the Descemet’s membrane along with endothelium can be pneumatically dissected from the posterior surface of the donor cornea.¹⁶⁰ Other methods of DMEK tissue preparation are slight modifications of the conventional stripping and bubble techniques. For example, liquid instead of air can be used to separate the Descemet’s membrane–endothelium complex from the stroma.¹⁴⁹ Studeny and colleagues¹⁶¹ introduced a hybrid variation of DMEK that retains an outer rim of donor stroma with a centrally bared Descemet’s membrane. Parekh and colleagues¹⁶² compared three stripping techniques and two bubble methods in terms of cost, preparation time, endothelial cell density, and endothelial cell death and morphology. They found a significantly higher cell death rate with pneumatic dissection and submerged hydroseparation than with stripping, which was attributed to the mechanical stress induced by pressure during bubble formation.¹⁶² However, the preparation time and associated costs were the drawbacks of the stripping methods.¹⁶²

DMEK provides the most rapid visual rehabilitation of all the endothelial keratoplasty techniques. Compared with DSAEK, more patients obtain a CDVA ⩾20/30 after DMEK because of elimination of stroma-related optical issues. The early studies on DMEK reported that CDVA was 20/20 in 26% of patients, ⩾20/25 in 63%, and 20/40 or better in 94% at 3 months. The rates of CDVA ⩾20/25 by 3 months after DMEK surpassed the rates reported with DSAEK at 6 months and beyond.^106,116,152 At 1 year, 39% of the eyes could be corrected to a CDVA of 20/20 or better, 79% recovered to 20/25 or better, and 97% had 20/30 or better.¹⁶³ Despite the refractive cylinder remaining unchanged, a small but statistically significant amount of hyperopic shift (⩽0.50 D) was noted following single DMEK procedures.^159,163,164

Graft detachment necessitating reinjection of air may be encountered in 20% of cases after DMEK.¹⁶⁵ However, with experience, the rate of this complication tends to decrease.¹⁶⁶ A recent study demonstrated that cataract removal at the time of DMEK and air fill to ⩽75% of the anterior chamber height at 2–3 h postoperatively were independently associated with an increased risk of postoperative graft detachment.¹⁶⁷ Indications for intracameral air or gas injection include partial (>33% of the graft surface), central, scrolled, or complete DMEK–lenticule detachment.¹⁶⁶ It is believed that early rebubbling of the graft is necessary to obtain an early recovery rate and a visual acuity in the order of 20/20 and to prevent shrinkage and fibrosis of the donor Descemet’s membrane.¹⁶⁶

Endothelial cell loss, caused by intraoperative trauma to the donor tissue, is one of the most common complications reported after DMEK. The average endothelial cell loss is 32%^158,159 at 6 months, 36% at 1 year,^163,168 and 42% at 3 years¹⁶⁹ following DMEK. Excessive intraoperative manipulations caused primary graft failure in 9% of operated eyes.^159,165 It has been reported that the risk of immunologic rejection may be lower after DMEK than after DSAEK or PK by 15-fold and 20-fold, respectively.¹⁷⁰

As surgeons transition to DMEK, eye banks have risen to the challenge of preparing tissue. Donor preparation by an eye bank can be a valuable option for surgeons because eye bank operators have experience preparing a significant volume of corneas on a daily basis, which reduces the graft preparation time, tissue wastage, and overall costs.^171,172 Prestripped DMEK grafts can also be preloaded in an eye bank without additional endothelial cell loss, making the procedure more efficient.^173,174 To prevent endothelial cell loss because of the graft scraping against the injector, DMEK tissue is manually tri-folded with the endothelial side inward before being inserted into the cartridge.¹⁷³ Prestripped and preloaded DMEK grafts can also be prestained with 0.06% Trypan blue with acceptable cell loss.¹⁷⁴

Cell-based approach for management of corneal endothelial dysfunction

At present, corneal transplantation is the only method that can cure corneal endothelial dysfunction. However, as a result of the worldwide global shortage of donor tissue, many affected individuals have no access to this treatment. Therefore, it is necessary to engineer corneal tissue that can be transplanted clinically. There are two problems associated with the development of such tissue engineering therapy, including in vitro expansion of human corneal endothelial cells and the techniques used to transfer these cells to the recipient eye. Ex vivo expansion of human corneal endothelial cells is restricted by their limited proliferative capacity, fibroblastic transformation, and cellular senescence during culture.^175–177 Furthermore, corneal endothelium is composed of a fragile monolayer sheet of cells, making transplantation of cultured cells technically difficult. Detailed descriptions of the different types of culture media and transplantation techniques for the cultured cells are not within the scope of this review, and interested readers are referred to the relevant references.^175–184

Culture medium

Different studies have used different types of human corneal endothelial cell culture medium, including human amniotic fluid, human bone marrow–derived mesenchymal stem cells, and conditioned medium from mouse embryonic stem cells.^178,179 All types of conditioned medium have an animal origin or an animal-derived component, mainly serum. To avoid potential contamination by infectious agents such as viruses and bacteria, a xeno-free medium would be more suitable. However, the high cost of serum-free culture medium containing growth factors such as basic fibroblast growth factor limits their use for scalable expansion of human corneal endothelial cell cultures with clinical application.

Transplantation of cultured cells

The methods that can be used to transplant cultured corneal endothelial cells include transplantation of a cultured corneal endothelial sheet and injection of cultured corneal endothelial cells as a cell suspension. Several investigators have successfully transplanted a cultured corneal endothelial sheet in an animal model.^180–183 However, transplantation of a flexible monolayer cell sheet to the anterior chamber of the eye is technically difficult. Furthermore, development of an artificial scaffold is a current problem for cell sheet transplantation. An alternative method is to regenerate corneal endothelium by cell injection to overcome the obstacles associated with cultured corneal endothelial sheet transplantation. The main drawback of this method is that the injected cells can be removed by the flow of aqueous humor, leading to poor adhesion of the cultured cells onto the posterior corneal surface.¹⁸⁴

Conclusion

Corneal endothelial dysfunction is one of the most common causes of corneal blindness. Although alternative approaches can be used to alleviate pain and discomfort, the most effective treatment is the replacement of the abnormal cornea with healthy donor tissue. With recent developments in lamellar keratoplasty techniques, endothelial keratoplasty, including DSAEK and DMEK, has become a popular corneal transplantation method in eyes with bullous keratopathy. However, the globally limited supply of human donor corneas is becoming an increasing challenge and necessitating a search for alternatives. Recent research has focused on addressing the challenges of culturing human corneal endothelial cells to allow transplantation of cultured cells to many recipients. However, standard culture methods and techniques of transplantation of cultured cells have not yet been well established for clinical purposes.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ebrahimi

Taghi-Abadi

Baharvand

Limbal stem cells in review. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2009; 4: 40–58.

Bonanno

JA.

Identity and regulation of ion transport mechanisms in the corneal endothelium. Prog Retin Eye Res 2003; 22: 69–94.

Bourne

WM.

Clinical estimation of corneal endothelial pump function. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1998; 96: 229–239; discussion 239.

Polisetti

Joyce

NC.

The culture of limbal stromal cells and corneal endothelial cells. Methods Mol Biol 2013; 1014: 131–139.

Joyce

NC.

Proliferative capacity of corneal endothelial cells. Exp Eye Res 2012; 95: 16–23.

Gain

Jullienne

et al . Global survey of corneal transplantation and eye banking. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016; 134: 167–173.

Bahn

Falls

Varley

et al . Classification of corneal endothelial disorders based on neural crest origin. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 558–563.

Bonanno

JA.

Molecular mechanisms underlying the corneal endothelial pump. Exp Eye Res 2012; 95: 2–7.

Maurice

. The cornea and sclera. In: Davson

(ed.) The eye. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1984, p. 85.

10.

Bourne

WM.

Biology of the corneal endothelium in health and disease. Eye 2003; 17: 912–918.

11.

Engelmann

Bohnke

Friedl

Isolation and long-term cultivation of human corneal endothelial cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1988; 29: 1656–1662.

12.

Joyce

Meklir

Joyce

et al . Cell cycle protein expression and proliferative status in human corneal cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996; 37: 645–655.

13.

Mimura

Joyce

NC.

Replication competence and senescence in central and peripheral human corneal endothelium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 1387–1396.

14.

Luchs

Cohen

Rapuano

et al . Ulcerative keratitis in bullous keratopathy. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 816–822.

15.

Zoega

Fujisawa

Sasaki

et al . Prevalence and risk factors for cornea guttata in the Reykjavik Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 565–569.

16.

Higa

Sakai

Sawaguchi

et al . Prevalence of and risk factors for cornea guttata in a population-based study in a southwestern island of Japan: the Kumejima study. Arch Ophthalmol 2011; 129: 332–336.

17.

Darlington

Adrean

Schwab

IR.

Trends of penetrating keratoplasty in the United States from 1980 to 2004. Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 2171–2175.

18.

Morrison

Waltman

SR.

Management of bullous keratopathy. Ophthalmic Surg 1989; 20: 205–210.

19.

Janson

Alward

Kwon

et al . Glaucoma-associated corneal endothelial cell damage: a review. Surv Ophthalmol 2018; 63: 500–506.

20.

Ward

Goins

Greiner

et al . Graft survival versus glaucoma treatment after penetrating or Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2014; 33: 785–789.

21.

Schmedt

Silva

Ziaei

et al . Molecular bases of corneal endothelial dystrophies. Exp Eye Res 2012; 95: 24–34.

22.

Eghrari

Gottsch

JD.

Fuchs’ corneal dystrophy. Expert Rev Ophthalmol 2010; 5: 147–159.

23.

Elhalis

Azizi

Jurkunas

UV.

Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy. Ocul Surf 2010; 8: 173–184.

24.

Krachmer

Purcell

Jr Young

et al . Corneal endothelial dystrophy. A study of 64 families. Arch Ophthalmol 1978; 96: 2036–2039.

25.

Biswas

Munier

Yardley

et al . Missense mutations in COL8A2, the gene encoding the alpha2 chain of type VIII collagen, cause two forms of corneal endothelial dystrophy. Hum Mol Genet 2001; 10: 2415–2423.

26.

Gottsch

Sundin

Liu

et al . Inheritance of a novel COL8A2 mutation defines a distinct early-onset subtype of Fuchs corneal dystrophy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 1934–1939.

27.

Sundin

Jun

Broman

et al . Linkage of late-onset Fuchs corneal dystrophy to a novel locus at 13pTel-13q12.13. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 140–145.

28.

Sundin

Broman

Chang

et al . A common locus for late-onset Fuchs corneal dystrophy maps to 18q21.2-q21.32. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 3919–3926.

29.

Riazuddin

Eghrari

Al-Saif

et al . Linkage of a mild late-onset phenotype of Fuchs corneal dystrophy to a novel locus at 5q33.1-q35.2. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50: 5667–5671.

30.

Riazuddin

Zaghloul

Al-Saif

et al . Missense mutations in TCF8 cause late-onset Fuchs corneal dystrophy and interact with FCD4 on chromosome 9p. Am J Hum Genet 2010; 86: 45–53.

31.

Claesson

Armitage

Stenevi

Corneal oedema after cataract surgery: predisposing factors and corneal graft outcome. Acta Ophthalmol 2009; 87: 154–159.

32.

Taylor

Atlas

Romanchuk

et al . Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Ophthalmology 1983; 90: 19–24.

33.

Weiss

Moller

Lisch

et al . The IC3D classification of the corneal dystrophies. Cornea 2008; 27(Suppl. 2): S1–S83.

34.

Aldave

Han

Frausto

RF.

Genetics of the corneal endothelial dystrophies: an evidence-based review. Clin Genet 2013; 84: 109–119.

35.

Vithana

Morgan

Sundaresan

et al . Mutations in sodium-borate cotransporter SLC4A11 cause recessive congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy (CHED2). Nat Genet 2006; 38: 755–757.

36.

Parker

Boron

WF.

The divergence, actions, roles, and relatives of sodium-coupled bicarbonate transporters. Physiol Rev 2013; 93: 803–959.

37.

Krachmer

JH.

Posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy: a disease characterized by epithelial-like endothelial cells which influence management and prognosis. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1985; 83: 413–475.

38.

Weiss

Moller

Aldave

et al . IC3D classification of corneal dystrophies – edition 2. Cornea 2015; 34: 117–159.

39.

Liskova

Gwilliam

Filipec

et al . High prevalence of posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy in the Czech Republic; linkage disequilibrium mapping and dating an ancestral mutation. PLoS ONE 2012; 7: e45495.

40.

Aldave

Ann

Frausto

et al . Classification of posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy as a corneal ectatic disorder following confirmation of associated significant corneal steepening. JAMA Ophthalmol 2013; 131: 1583–1590.

41.

Seitz

Lisch

Stage-related therapy of corneal dystrophies. Dev Ophthalmol 2011; 48: 116–153.

42.

Moroi

Gokhale

Schteingart

et al . Clinicopathologic correlation and genetic analysis in a case of posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 135: 461–470.

43.

Jirsova

Merjava

Martincova

et al . Immunohistochemical characterization of cytokeratins in the abnormal corneal endothelium of posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy patients. Exp Eye Res 2007; 84: 680–686.

44.

Chung

Frausto

Lin

et al . Transcriptomic profiling of posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017; 58: 3202–3214.

45.

Shields

MB.

Progressive essential iris atrophy, Chandler’s syndrome, and the iris nevus (Cogan-Reese) syndrome: a spectrum of disease. Surv Ophthalmol 1979; 24: 3–20.

46.

Laganowski

KerrMuir

Hitchings

RA.

Glaucoma and the iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol 1992; 110: 346–350.

47.

Eagle

Jr Font

Yanoff

et al . Proliferative endotheliopathy with iris abnormalities. Arch Ophthalmol 1979; 97: 2104–2111.

48.

Sun

JJ.

In-vivo confocal microscopy of iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Int Ophthalmol 2009; 29: 11–18.

49.

Scheie

Yanoff

Iris nevus (Cogan-Reese) syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol 1975; 93: 963–970.

50.

Alvarado

Underwood

Green

et al . Detection of herpes simplex viral DNA in the iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 1601–1609.

51.

Tsai

Ritch

Straus

et al . Antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus in iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol 1990; 108: 1572–1576.

52.

Liu

Wang

et al . Clinical and specular microscopic manifestations of iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2001; 45: 281–287.

53.

Lee

Marshall

Kirkness

CM.

Corneal endothelial cell abnormalities in an early stage of the iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol 1994; 78: 624–631.

54.

Sherrard

Frangoulis

Muir

MG.

On the morphology of cells of posterior cornea in the iridocorneal endothelial syndrome. Cornea 1991; 10: 233–243.

55.

Campbell

Shields

Smith

TR.

The corneal endothelium and the spectrum of essential iris atrophy. Am J Ophthalmol 1978; 86: 317–324.

56.

Knezovic

Dekaris

Gabric

et al . Therapeutic efficacy of 5% NaCl hypertonic solution in patients with bullous keratopathy. Coll Antropol 2006; 30: 405–408.

57.

Takahashi

Leibowitz

HM.

Hydrophilic contact lenses in corneal disease. Arch Ophthalmol 1971; 86: 133–137.

58.

Foulks

GN.

Treatment of recurrent corneal erosion and corneal edema with topical osmotic colloidal solution. Ophthalmology 1981; 88: 801–803.

59.

Smiddy

Hamburg

Kracher

et al . Therapeutic contact lenses. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 291–295.

60.

Gasset

Kaufman

HE.

Bandage lenses in the treatment of bullous keratopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 1971; 72: 376–380.

61.

Lim

Vogt

Comparison of conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lenses for bullous keratoplasty. Eye Contact Lens 2006; 32: 250–253.

62.

Gomes

Haraguchi

Zambrano

et al . Anterior stromal puncture in the treatment of bullous keratopathy: six-month follow-up. Cornea 2001; 20: 570–572.

63.

Sridhar

Vemuganti

Bansal

et al . Anterior stromal puncture in bullous keratopathy: a clinicopathologic study. Cornea 2001; 20: 573–579.

64.

Cormier

Brunette

Boisjoly

et al . Anterior stromal punctures for bullous keratopathy. Arch Ophthalmol 1996; 114: 654–658.

65.

Hsu

Rubinfeld

Barry

et al . Anterior stromal puncture. Immunohistochemical studies in human corneas. Arch Ophthalmol 1993; 111: 1057–1063.

66.

Thomann

Meier-Gibbons

Schipper

Phototherapeutic keratectomy for bullous keratopathy. Br J Ophthalmol 1995; 79: 335–338.

67.

Thomann

Niesen

Schipper

Successful phototherapeutic keratectomy for recurrent erosions in bullous keratopathy. J Refract Surg 1996; 12: S290–S292.

68.

Lin

Lee

SM.

Combined phototherapeutic keratectomy and therapeutic contact lens for recurrent erosions in bullous keratopathy. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 908–911.

69.

Stark

Green

WR.

Corneal wound healing after 193-nm excimer laser keratectomy. Arch Ophthalmol 1991; 109: 1426–1432.

70.

Maini

Sullivan

Snibson

et al . A comparison of different depth ablations in the treatment of painful bullous keratopathy with phototherapeutic keratectomy. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 912–915.

71.

Gundersen

Surgical treatment of bullous keratopathy. Arch Ophthalmol 1960; 64: 260–267.

72.

Guell

Morral

Gris

et al . Treatment of symptomatic bullous keratopathy with poor visual prognosis using a modified Gundersen conjunctival flap and amniotic membrane. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2012; 43: 508–512.

73.

Georgiadis

Ziakas

Boboridis

et al . Cryopreserved amniotic membrane transplantation for the management of symptomatic bullous keratopathy. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008; 36: 130–135.

74.

Srinivas

Mavrikakis

Jenkins

Amniotic membrane transplantation for painful bullous keratopathy. Eur J Ophthalmol 2007; 17: 7–10.

75.

Espana

Grueterich

Sandoval

et al . Amniotic membrane transplantation for bullous keratopathy in eyes with poor visual potential. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 279–284.

76.

Pires

Tseng

Prabhasawat

et al . Amniotic membrane transplantation for symptomatic bullous keratopathy. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 1291–1297.

77.

Mejia

Santamaria

Acosta

Symptomatic management of postoperative bullous keratopathy with nonpreserved human amniotic membrane. Cornea 2002; 21: 342–345.

78.

Shimmura

Tsubota

Ocular surface reconstruction update. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2002; 13: 213–219.

79.

Paris

Goncalves

Campos

et al . Amniotic membrane transplantation versus anterior stromal puncture in bullous keratopathy: a comparative study. Br J Ophthalmol 2013; 97: 980–984.

80.

Chawla

Sharma

Tandon

et al . Comparative evaluation of phototherapeutic keratectomy and amniotic membrane transplantation for management of symptomatic chronic bullous keratopathy. Cornea 2010; 29: 976–979.

81.

Vyas

Rathi

Combined phototherapeutic keratectomy and amniotic membrane grafts for symptomatic bullous keratopathy. Cornea 2009; 28: 1028–1031.

82.

Sonmez

Kim

Aldave

AJ.

Amniotic membrane transplantation with anterior stromal micropuncture for treatment of painful bullous keratopathy in eyes with poor visual potential. Cornea 2007; 26: 227–229.

83.

Gregory

Spiteri-Cornish

Hegarty

et al . Combined amniotic membrane transplant and anterior stromal puncture in painful bullous keratopathy: clinical outcome and confocal microscopy. Can J Ophthalmol 2011; 46: 169–174.

84.

Krueger

Mrochen

Introduction to the proceedings of the third international congress of corneal cross-linking. J Refract Surg 2008; 24: S713–S714.

85.

Bottos

Hofling-Lima

Barbosa

et al . Effect of collagen cross-linking in stromal fibril organization in edematous human corneas. Cornea 2010; 29: 789–793.

86.

Ehlers

Hjortdal

Riboflavin–ultraviolet light induced cross-linking in endothelial decompensation. Acta Ophthalmol 2008; 86: 549–551.

87.

Hafezi

Dejica

Majo

Modified corneal collagen crosslinking reduces corneal oedema and diurnal visual fluctuations in Fuchs dystrophy. Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94: 660–661.

88.

Arora

Manudhane

Saran

et al . Role of corneal collagen cross-linking in pseudophakic bullous keratopathy: a clinicopathological study. Ophthalmology 2013; 120: 2413–2418.

89.

Sharma

Roy

Maharana

et al . Outcomes of corneal collagen crosslinking in pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Cornea 2014; 33: 243–246.

90.

Ghanem

Santhiago

Berti

et al . Collagen crosslinking with riboflavin and ultraviolet-A in eyes with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36: 273–276.

91.

Barbosa

CMM

Barbosa

Jr Hirai

et al . Effect of cross-linking on corneal thickness in patients with corneal edema. Cornea 2010; 29: 613–617.

92.

Gharaee

Ansari-Astaneh

Armanfar

The effects of riboflavin/ultraviolet: a corneal cross-linking on the signs and symptoms of bullous keratopathy. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2011; 18: 58–60.

93.

Olson

Ashworth

Hall

An essential role for Rho, Rac, and Cdc42 GTPases in cell cycle progression through G1. Science 1995; 269: 1270–1272.

94.

Hall

Rho GTPases and the actin cytoskeleton. Science 1998; 279: 509–514.

95.

Riento

Ridley

AJ.

Rocks: multifunctional kinases in cell behaviour. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2003; 4: 446–456.

96.

Coleman

Marshall

Olson

MF.

RAS and RHO GTPases in G1-phase cell-cycle regulation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2004; 5: 355–366.

97.

Watanabe

Ueno

Kamiya

et al . A ROCK inhibitor permits survival of dissociated human embryonic stem cells. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25: 681–686.

98.

Okumura

Ueno

Koizumi

et al . Enhancement on primate corneal endothelial cell survival in vitro by a ROCK inhibitor. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009; 50: 3680–3687.

99.

Okumura

Koizumi

Ueno

et al . Enhancement of corneal endothelium wound healing by Rho-associated kinase (ROCK) inhibitor eye drops. Br J Ophthalmol 2011; 95: 1006–1009.

100.

Okumura

Koizumi

Kay

et al . The ROCK inhibitor eye drop accelerates corneal endothelium wound healing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54: 2493–2502.

101.

Kinoshita

Koizumi

Ueno

et al . Injection of cultured cells with a ROCK inhibitor for bullous keratopathy. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 995–1003.

102.

Peh

Adnan

George

et al . The effects of Rho-associated kinase inhibitor Y-27632 on primary human corneal endothelial cells propagated using a dual media approach. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 9167.

103.

Pipparelli

Arsenijevic

Thuret

et al . ROCK inhibitor enhances adhesion and wound healing of human corneal endothelial cells. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e62095.

104.

Parekh

Ahmad

Ruzza

et al . Human corneal endothelial cell cultivation from old donor corneas with forced attachment. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 142.

105.

Claesson

Armitage

Fagerholm

et al . Visual outcome in corneal grafts: a preliminary analysis of the Swedish Corneal Transplant Register. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86: 174–180.

106.

Price

Baig

Brubaker

et al . Randomized, prospective comparison of precut vs surgeon-dissected grafts for Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2008; 146: 36–41.

107.

Terry

Goshe

et al . Three-year visual acuity outcomes after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 1126–1129.

108.

Bahar

Kaiserman

McAllum

et al . Comparison of posterior lamellar keratoplasty techniques to penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 1525–1533.

109.

Bahar

Kaiserman

Sansanayudh

et al . Busin guide vs forceps for the insertion of the donor lenticule in Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2009; 147: 220–226.e1.

110.

Busin

Bhatt

Scorcia

A modified technique for Descemet membrane stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty to minimize endothelial cell loss. Arch Ophthalmol 2008; 126: 1133–1137.

111.

Covert

Koenig

SB.

Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in eyes with failed penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea 2007; 26: 692–696.

112.

Covert

Koenig

SB.

New triple procedure: Descemet’s stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty combined with phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1272–1277.

113.

Gorovoy

MS.

Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2006; 25: 886–889.

114.

Gupta

Bordelon

Vroman

et al . Early outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in pseudophakic eyes with anterior chamber intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 151: 24–28.e1.

115.

Koenig

Covert

DJ.

Early results of small-incision Descemet’s stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 221–226.

116.

Koenig

Covert

Dupps

Jr et al . Visual acuity, refractive error, and endothelial cell density six months after Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Cornea 2007; 26: 670–674.

117.

Terry

Shamie

Chen

et al . Endothelial keratoplasty for Fuchs’ dystrophy with cataract: complications and clinical results with the new triple procedure. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 631–639.

118.

Pineros

Cohen

Rapuano

et al . Long-term results after penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy. Arch Ophthalmol 1996; 114: 15–18.

119.

Price

Jr Whitson

Marks

RG.

Progression of visual acuity after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 1991; 98: 1177–1185.

120.

Lombardo

Terry

Lombardo

et al . Analysis of posterior donor corneal parameters 1 year after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) triple procedure. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2010; 248: 421–427.

121.

Chen

Terry

Shamie

et al . Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: six-month results in a prospective study of 100 eyes. Cornea 2008; 27: 514–520.

122.

Dupps

Jr Qian

Meisler

DM.

Multivariate model of refractive shift in Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 578–584.

123.

Mearza

Qureshi

Rostron

CK.

Experience and 12-month results of Descemet-stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) with a small-incision technique. Cornea 2007; 26: 279–283.

124.

Chen

Phillips

Terry

et al . Endothelial cell damage in Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the underfold technique: 6- and 12-month results. Cornea 2010; 29: 1022–1024.

125.

Foster

Vasan

Walter

KA.

Three-millimeter incision Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty using sodium hyaluronate (healon): a survey of 105 eyes. Cornea 2011; 30: 150–153.

126.

Khor

Mehta

Tan

DT.

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with a graft insertion device: surgical technique and early clinical results. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 151: 223–232.e2.

127.

Kobayashi

Yokogawa

Sugiyama

Descemet stripping with automated endothelial keratoplasty for bullous keratopathies secondary to argon laser iridotomy – preliminary results and usefulness of double-glide donor insertion technique. Cornea 2008; 27(Suppl. 1): S62–S69.

128.

Terry

Goshe

et al . Endothelial keratoplasty: the relationship between donor tissue size and donor endothelial survival. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 1944–1949.

129.

Price

Gorovoy

Benetz

et al . Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty outcomes compared with penetrating keratoplasty from the Cornea Donor Study. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 438–444.

130.

Price

Jr.

Endothelial cell loss after Descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty influencing factors and 2-year trend. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 857–865.

131.

Terry

Chen

Shamie

et al . Endothelial cell loss after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in a large prospective series. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 488–496.e3.

132.

Price

Fairchild

Price

et al . Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty five-year graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 725–729.

133.

Bertelmann

Pleyer

Rieck

Risk factors for endothelial cell loss post-keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006; 84: 766–770.

134.

Bourne

WM.

One-year observation of transplanted human corneal endothelium. Ophthalmology 1980; 87: 673–679.

135.

Culbertson

Abbott

Forster

RK.

Endothelial cell loss in penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 1982; 89: 600–604.

136.

Patel

Hodge

Bourne

WM.

Corneal endothelium and postoperative outcomes 15 years after penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2005; 139: 311–319.

137.

Frueh

Bohnke

Prospective, randomized clinical evaluation of Optisol vs organ culture corneal storage media. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118: 757–760.

138.

Lass

Gal

Dontchev

et al . Donor age and corneal endothelial cell loss 5 years after successful corneal transplantation. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 627–632.e8.

139.

Lass

Benetz

Verdier

et al . Corneal endothelial cell loss 3 years after successful Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in the cornea preservation time study: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017; 135: 1394–1400.

140.

Terry

Goshe

et al . Graft rejection after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 90–94.

141.

Bahar

Sansanayudh

Levinger

et al . Posterior lamellar keratoplasty – comparison of deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in the same patients: a patient’s perspective. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93: 186–190.

142.

Sarnicola

Toro

Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty by using suture for donor insertion. Cornea 2008; 27: 825–829.

143.

Anshu

Lim

Htoon

et al . Postoperative risk factors influencing corneal graft survival in the Singapore Corneal Transplant Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 151: 442–448.e1.

144.

Gal

Dontchev

Beck

et al . The effect of donor age on corneal transplantation outcome results of the cornea donor study. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 620–626.e6.

145.

Thompson

Jr Price

Bowers

et al . Long-term graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 1396–1402.

146.

Vail

Gore

Bradley

et al . Corneal graft survival and visual outcome. Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 120–127.

147.

Terry

Aldave

Szczotka-Flynn

et al . Donor, recipient and operative factors associated with graft success in the cornea preservation time study. Ophthalmology 2018; 125: 1700–1709.

148.

Lass

Riddlesworth

Gal

et al . The effect of donor diabetes history on graft failure and endothelial cell density 10 years after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2015; 122: 448–456.

149.

Parekh

Ruzza

Salvalaio

et al . Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissue preparation from donor corneas using a standardized submerged hydro-separation method. Am J Ophthalmol 2014; 158: 277–285.e1.

150.

Letko

Price

Lindoso

et al . Secondary graft failure and repeat endothelial keratoplasty after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 310–314.

151.

Patel

Baratz

Hodge

et al . The effect of corneal light scatter on vision after Descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol 2009; 127: 153–160.

152.

Price

Jr.

Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty: comparative outcomes with microkeratome-dissected and manually dissected donor tissue. Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 1936–1942.

153.

Hayes

Shih

Shamie

et al . Spontaneous reattachment of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty lenticles: a case series of 12 patients. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 150: 790–797.

154.

Allan

Terry

Price

Jr et al . Corneal transplant rejection rate and severity after endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2007; 26: 1039–1042.

155.

Price

Jordan

Moore

et al . Graft rejection episodes after Descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty: part two: the statistical analysis of probability and risk factors. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93: 391–395.

156.

Ruzza

Parekh

Ferrari

et al . Preloaded donor corneal lenticules in a new validated 3D printed smart storage glide for Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol 2015; 99: 1388–1395.

157.

Melles

Lander

Rietveld

FJ.

Transplantation of Descemet’s membrane carrying viable endothelium through a small scleral incision. Cornea 2002; 21: 415–418.

158.

Laaser

Bachmann

Horn

et al . Donor tissue culture conditions and outcome after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 151: 1007–1018.e2.

159.

Price

Giebel

Fairchild

et al . Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 2361–2368.

160.

Busin

Scorcia

Patel

et al . Pneumatic dissection and storage of donor endothelial tissue for Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a novel technique. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 1517–1520.

161.

Studeny

Farkas

Vokrojova

et al . Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with a stromal rim (DMEK-S). Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94: 909–914.

162.

Parekh

Borroni

Ruzza

et al . A comparative study on different Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft preparation techniques. Acta Ophthalmol 2018; 96: e718–e726.

163.

Guerra

Anshu

Price

et al . Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 2011; 118: 2368–2373.

164.

Ham

Dapena

van Luijk

et al . Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy: review of the first 50 consecutive cases. Eye 2009; 23: 1990–1998.

165.

Dapena

Moutsouris

Ham

et al . Graft detachment rate. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 847–847.e1.

166.

Parekh

Leon

Ruzza

et al . Graft detachment and rebubbling rate in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Surv Ophthalmol 2018; 63: 245–250.

167.

Siebelmann

Ramos

Matthaei

et al . Factors associated with early graft detachment in primary Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2018; 192: 249–250.

168.

Ham

van Luijk

Dapena

et al . Endothelial cell density after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1- to 2-year follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 2009; 148: 521–527.

169.

Ham

Dapena

Van Der Wees

et al . Endothelial cell density after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 1- to 3-year follow-up. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 149: 1016–1017.

170.

Anshu

Price

Jr.

Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2012; 119: 536–540.

171.

Parekh

Baruzzo

Favaro

et al . Standardizing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft preparation method in the eye bank-experience of 527 Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissues. Cornea 2017; 36: 1458–1466.

172.

Parekh

Ruzza

Romano

et al . Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty learning curve for graft preparation in an eye bank using 645 donor corneas. Cornea 2018; 37: 767–771.

173.

Parekh

Ruzza

Ferrari

et al . Preloaded tissues for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 2016; 166: 120–125.

174.

Zeidenweber

Tran

Sales

et al . Prestained and preloaded DMEK grafts: an evaluation of tissue quality and stain retention. Cornea 2017; 36: 1402–1407.

175.

Peh

Beuerman

Colman

et al . Human corneal endothelial cell expansion for corneal endothelium transplantation: an overview. Transplantation 2011; 91: 811–819.

176.

Okumura

Kay

Nakahara

et al . Inhibition of TGF-β signaling enables human corneal endothelial cell expansion in vitro for use in regenerative medicine. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e58000.

177.

Nakahara

Okumura

Kay

et al . Corneal endothelial expansion promoted by human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell-derived conditioned medium. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e69009.

178.

Mimura

Yokoo

Yamagami

Tissue engineering of corneal endothelium. J Funct Biomater 2012; 3: 726–744.

179.

Feizi

Soheili

Bagheri

et al . Effect of amniotic fluid on the in vitro culture of human corneal endothelial cells. Exp Eye Res 2014; 122: 132–140.

180.

Ishino

Sano

Nakamura

et al . Amniotic membrane as a carrier for cultivated human corneal endothelial cell transplantation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 800–806.

181.

Mimura

Yamagami

Yokoo

et al . Cultured human corneal endothelial cell transplantation with a collagen sheet in a rabbit model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 2992–2997.

182.

Sumide

Nishida

Yamato

et al . Functional human corneal endothelial cell sheets harvested from temperature-responsive culture surfaces. FASEB J 2006; 20: 392–394.

183.

Koizumi

Sakamoto

Okumura

et al . Cultivated corneal endothelial cell sheet transplantation in a primate model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007; 48: 4519–4526.

184.

Okumura

Koizumi

Ueno

et al . ROCK inhibitor converts corneal endothelial cells into a phenotype capable of regenerating in vivo endothelial tissue. Am J Pathol 2012; 181: 268–277.