Erratum to "Visual Outcomes of Ultrathin-Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty".

Konstantinos Droutsas,Anastasia Karagianni,Apostolos Lazaridis,Myrsini Petrelli,George Kymionis,Dimitrios Miltsakakis,Konstantinos Andreanos,Chrysanthi Koutsandrea

doi:10.1155/2019/4786431

Abstract

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2018/5924058.].

Highlights

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) has surpassed penetrating keratoplasty (PK) as the preferred treatment method for patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction [1]. e numerous advantages of DSAEK over PK include the avoidance of an open sky procedure, absence of suture-related complications, better tectonic and refractive stability, and faster visual rehabilitation [2, 3]
In contrast to PK, where all layers of the host cornea are replaced, DSAEK represents an additive procedure, where a graft consisting of a layer of posterior donor stroma of variable thickness and a layer of healthy corneal endothelium is placed on the posterior surface of the host cornea. is increased corneal thickness may limit the visual outcome after DSAEK [4]. us, a trend has emerged [5,6,7] favouring thinner grafts and even alternative surgical procedures, such as Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and pre-Descemet’s endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK)
A more regular posterior corneal surface has been shown to be achieved with thinner grafts, which, in turn, results in fewer, high-order aberrations. is reduction could explain the faster and better visual recovery observed with thinner DSAEK grafts [10, 18]

Summary

Introduction

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) has surpassed penetrating keratoplasty (PK) as the preferred treatment method for patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction [1]. e numerous advantages of DSAEK over PK include the avoidance of an open sky procedure, absence of suture-related complications, better tectonic and refractive stability, and faster visual rehabilitation [2, 3].In contrast to PK, where all layers of the host cornea are replaced, DSAEK represents an additive procedure, where a graft consisting of a layer of posterior donor stroma of variable thickness and a layer of healthy corneal endothelium is placed on the posterior surface of the host cornea. is increased corneal thickness may limit the visual outcome after DSAEK [4]. us, a trend has emerged [5,6,7] favouring thinner grafts (i.e., thin and UT-DSAEK) and even alternative surgical procedures, such as Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and pre-Descemet’s endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK).To date, the evidence for differences in visual outcomes depending on GT remains controversial. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) has surpassed penetrating keratoplasty (PK) as the preferred treatment method for patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction [1]. Is increased corneal thickness may limit the visual outcome after DSAEK [4]. Us, a trend has emerged [5,6,7] favouring thinner grafts (i.e., thin and UT-DSAEK) and even alternative surgical procedures, such as Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and pre-Descemet’s endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK). A number of studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between GT and postoperative visual acuity after DSAEK [8,9,10], whereas others have not provided supporting data for this hypothesis [11,12,13]. A number of studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between GT and postoperative visual acuity after DSAEK [8,9,10], whereas others have not provided supporting data for this hypothesis [11,12,13]. us, the aim of this study was to further elucidate the possible impact of GT on postoperative visual

Objectives

Results

Conclusion