Biomechanical evaluation of central and peripheral Descemet’s membrane endothelial graft

How to Cite

Romano V, Zhuola Z, Chang Z, Steger B, Levis HJ, Kaye SB, Akhtar R. Biomechanical evaluation of central and peripheral Descemet’s membrane endothelial graft. MAIO [Internet]. 2018 Jun. 18 [cited 2024 May 22];2(2):47-51. Available from:

Copyright notice

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work twelve (12) months after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.

  2. After 12 months from the date of publication, authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.


atomic force microscopy (AFM); biomechanical behavior; corneal transplant; endothelial keratoplasty


Corneal endothelial transplant is the gold-standard treatment in cases of corneal endothelial cellular dysfunction. Preparation, delivery, and unfolding of the graft are technically demanding. We assessed the biomechanical behavior of Descemet’s membrane to better understand Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty(DMEK) graft behavior, and to select the right diameter and donor age graft . The biomechanical behavior was tested using atomic force microscopy (AFM) on five corneas unsuitable for transplantation. The peripheral cornea was found to be stiffer than the central cornea (3171.89 MPa and 2837.20 MPa, respectively). The elastic modulus of both the central and peripheral cornea exhibited a trend to decrease with age. In addition, the central cornea becomes stiff er than the peripheral cornea in older patients, while the peripheral cornea was stiff er in younger patients. AFM is a suitable technique for evaluating biomechanical behavior of DMEK graft s. One interpretation of this varied behavior is that the type and quantity of collagen changes with age and location.


Anshu A, Price MO, Tan DT, Price FW, Jr. Endothelial keratoplasty: a revolution in evolution. Surv Ophthalmol. 2012;57(3):236-252.

Dapena I, Ham L, Melles GR. Endothelial keratoplasty: DSEK/DSAEK or DMEK--the thinner the better? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(4):299-307.

Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Ham L, Melles GR. Graft detachment rate. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(4):847-e1.

Fernandez Lopez E, Baydoun L, Gerber-Hollbach N, Dapena I, Liarakos VS, Ham L, et al. Rebubbling techniques for graft detachment after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2016;35(6):759-764.

O’Brien PD, Lake DB, Saw VP, Rostron CK, Dart JK, Allan BD. Endothelial keratoplasty: case selection in the learning curve. Cornea. 2008;27(10):1114-1148.

Parekh M, Ruzza A, Ferrari S, Ahmad S, Kaye S, Ponzin D, et al. Endothelium-in versus endothelium-out for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft preparation and implantation. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(2):194-198.

Romano V, Parekh M, Ruzza A, Willoughby CE, Ferrari S, Ponzin D, et al. Comparison of preservation and transportation protocols for preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310906.