Evidence Hub

Corneal Densitometry as a Predictive Diagnostic Tool for Visual Acuity Results After Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty

F. Schaub, Fanny Gerber, W. Adler, P. Enders, S. Schrittenlocher, L. Heindl, C. Cursiefen, B. Bachmann

American journal of ophthalmology-glaucoma, 2019

551 participants · 47 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

We sought to investigate correlations between preoperative corneal backscatter with visual acuity results after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in eyes with corneal endothelial disorders.

DESIGN

Retrospective interventional case series.

METHODS

The first 551 consecutive patients with DMEK at the Center of Ophthalmology, University of Cologne who had available preoperative corneal densitometry values (corneal light backscatter measured in gray scale units) measured with the Scheimpflug-based Oculus Pentacam corneal densitometry module were screened for eligibility. Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) results were retrospectively correlated with densitometry data. Densitometry data were obtained in 4 corneal layers (ie, anterior, central, posterior, and total layers) and 4 annuli. Pre- and postoperative BSCVA results were correlated with densitometry data. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Four hundred twelve eyes were available for the analyses. Visual acuity results improved significantly after DMEK surgery at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up (P < .001). Corneal backscatter correlated moderately with preoperative BSCVA results. Moderate associations to postoperative BSCVA results could predominantly be found between densitometry values of the anterior and central layer more pronounced in the center of the cornea for all postoperative timepoints. The posterior layer correlated worst with postoperative…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 551 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free