Skip to content

DMEK Versus DSAEK Study

Corneal Transplantation by DMEK - is it Really Better Than DSAEK?

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02793310
Acronym
DMEK
Enrollment
54
Registered
2016-06-08
Start date
2016-10-31
Completion date
2019-02-28
Last updated
2019-03-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Fuchs' Endothelial Dystrophy

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to determine whether corneal transplantation by Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty more favourable and cost-effective is compared to Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty for Fuchs Endothelium Corneal Dystrophy.

Detailed description

FECD is a progressive, multifactorial and irreversible disease characterized by accelerated loss of corneal endothelial cells in the innermost layer of the cornea that leads to vision impairment and potential blindness if left untreated. FECD is responsible for more than 50% of the 1.300 annual corneal transplantations in the Netherlands. Corneal transplantation improves vision and quality of life in patients with corneal disease. Currently, the standard of care for patients with Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy (FECD) is Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSAEK), in which only the posterior layers of the cornea are transplanted. However, visual recovery following DSAEK is suboptimal. Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK), the latest technique in corneal transplantation involves transplantation of only a monolayer of corneal endothelium and Descemet's membrane providing the thinnest endothelial graft possible. DMEK has been suggested to result in faster and better visual recovery compared to DSAEK. While the economic burden, both medical and social, from this disease has not been assessed to date, costs associated with corneal transplantation reach $ 110 million dollars yearly for the 47.000 transplantations in the USA. The objective of this project is to assess the effects and costs of DMEK vs. DSAEK in order to determine whether the new technique is effective and cost-effective over the standard technique. The primary outcome measure is best-corrected visual acuity. Secondary outcome measures are contrast acuity, astigmatism, quality of vision, endothelial cell loss, incidence of graft rejection, primary graft failure, cornea donor loss due to preparation, and generic and vision-related quality of life.

Interventions

PROCEDUREDMEK

The intervention group will receive cornea transplantation by DMEK

PROCEDUREDSAEK

The usual care / control group will receive cornea transplantation by DSAEK

Sponsors

ZonMw: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development
CollaboratorOTHER
Maastricht University Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Cornea decompensation caused Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy

Exclusion criteria

* Ocular comorbidities other than cataract * Previous corneal transplantation * Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matched keratoplasty * Inability to complete follow-up

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in best-corrected visual acuityPreoperatively and 3, 6, 12 months post-operativelyVisual acuity will be measured by ETDRS letter charts

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in astigmatismPreoperatively and 3, 6, 12 months post-operativelyAstigmatism will be measured using the The Pentacam HR (Oculus Inc., Lynnwood, USA)
Change in corneal scatterPreoperatively and 3, 6, 12 months post-operativelyCorneal scatter will be measured using a confocal microscope
Change in endothelial cell lossPreoperatively and 3, 6, 12 months post-operativelyEndothelial cell loss will be measured using specular microscopy photography.
Incidence of graft rejection3, 6, 12 months post-operatively
Change in contrast sensitivityPreoperatively and 3, 6, 12 months post-operativelyContrast sensitivity will be measured using the CSV-1000 chart by Vector Vision
Incidence of cornea donor loss due to preparationPreoperativelyThe eye bank providing the donor cornea's will register cornea donor loss if a complication occurs during preparation that renders the cornea unusable.
Change in generic quality of lifePreoperatively and 3, 6, 12 months post-operativelyGeneric quality of life will be measured using the HUI3 (Health Utility Index Mark 3), which test 8 dimensions: vision, hearing, speech, ambulation, dexterity, emotion, cognition and pain.
Change in vision-related quality of lifePreoperatively and 3, 6, 12 months post-operativelyVision-related quality of life will be measured using the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), which is specified for vision-related quality of life.
Incidence of primary graft failure3, 6, 12 months post-operativelyPrimary Graft failure will be assessed during ophthalmic examination.

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026