Effect of Monofocal, Wavefront-Shaped, and Diffractive Trifocal Intraocular Lenses on Scanning-Slit Automated Refraction.

PURPOSE: To compare scanning-slit retinoscopy automated refraction spherical equivalent (ARSE) to subjective manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) in normal eyes with four different types of intraocular lenses (IOLs). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: A total of 279 pseudophakic eyes that underwent lens extraction at a private center with implantation of either a wavefront shaped IOL (Acrysof® Vivity, DFT015), a nonapodized diffractive trifocal IOL (Acrysof® Panoptix), or a monofocal IOL with negative spherical aberration (Tecnis ZCBOO) or aberration-free (Envista Mx60E). Patients who had an automated refraction measurement with retinoscopy refractometer and aberrometer (NIDEK OPD Scan III, Nidek Technologies) and subjective refraction data 1-2 months postoperatively were included in the study. Main outcome measured was the difference between automated refraction and subjective refraction. RESULTS: Sixty-one eyes implanted with a DFT015 IOL, 78 eyes with a TFNT00 IOL, 40 with a ZCBOO IOL and 100 with a Mx60E IOL were enrolled in this study. Statistically significant myopic results were observed when using ARSE compared to MRSE in the DFT015 (-0.95 ± 0.64, -0.33 ± 0.65, P < .001), TFNT00 (-0.43 ± 0.36, -0.2 ± 0.35, P < .001), ZCBOO (-0.81 ± 0.63, -0.4 ± 0.69, P = .008) and Mx60E (-0.75 ± 0.65, -0.45 ± 0.52; P < .05) IOL groups. The absolute difference between the 2 methods was statistically significant in the DFT015 IOL group (0.65 ± 0.49; P < .05). CONCLUSION: Automated refraction yields myopic results in pseudophakic eyes with monofocal and presbyopia correcting IOLs and may be used with caution. Manifest refraction "push-plus" technique should be used in all pseudophakic eyes to avoid over-minus prescriptions, especially in patient with residual refractive error following cataract surgery.

Comparison of long-term outcomes of simultaneous accelerated corneal crosslinking combined with intracorneal ring segment or topography-guided PRK.

PURPOSE: To compare long-term outcomes of simultaneous accelerated corneal crosslinking (CXL) with intrastromal corneal ring segments (CXL-ICRS) with simultaneous accelerated CXL with topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (CXL-TG-PRK) in progressive keratoconus (KC). SETTING: Kensington Eye Institute and Bochner Eye Institute, Toronto, Canada. DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized interventional study. METHODS: The change in visual and topographical outcomes of CXL-ICRS and CXL-TG-PRK 4 to 5 years postoperatively were compared using linear regression models adjusted for preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and maximum keratometry (Kmax). RESULTS: 57 eyes of 43 patients with progressive KC who underwent simultaneous accelerated (9 mW/cm 2 , 10 minutes) CXL-ICRS (n = 32) and CXL-TG-PRK (n = 25) were included. Mean follow-up duration was 51.28 (9.58) and 54.57 (5.81) months for the CXL-ICRS and CXL-TG-PRK groups, respectively. Initial mean Kmax was higher in the CXL-ICRS group compared with the CXL-TG-PRK group (60.68 ± 6.81 diopters [D] vs 57.15 ± 4.19 D, P = .02). At the last follow-up, change (improvement) in logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) compared with that preoperatively was significant with CXL-ICRS (-0.31 ± 0.27, P < .001, which is equivalent to approximately 3 lines) and not significant with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.06 ± 0.42, P = .43). The logMAR CDVA improved significantly with CXL-ICRS (-0.22 ± 0.20, P < .001), but not with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.05 ± 0.22, P = .25). Adjusting for baseline Kmax and CDVA, the improvement in UDVA was significantly greater with CXL-ICRS than with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.27, 95% CI, 0.06-0.47, P = .01). Improvement in CDVA was not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of progressive KC with long-term follow-up, UDVA showed more improvement with accelerated CXL-ICRS than with CXL-TG-PRK.

Phototherapeutic keratectomy versus epithelial debridement combined with anterior stromal puncture or diamond burr for recurrent corneal erosions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) versus epithelial debridement combined with anterior stromal puncture (ASP) or diamond burr for the treatment of recurrent corneal erosions (RCES) in a large tertiary centre. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of RCES secondary to trauma or epithelial basement membrane dystrophy who underwent a surgical procedure between 2009 and 2019 were included in the study. The following data were collected: demographics, ocular history, prior medical treatment, ocular surgeries, intervention, complete epithelialization at postoperative week 1, recurrences, and complications. Recurrence was defined as either an objective finding of a corneal epithelial defect or symptoms suggestive of recurrent epithelial erosion on history. Recurrence rate and time to epithelialization were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 97 eyes (73 patients) were included in the study. Mean patient age was 51 ± 16.1 years, and mean follow-up was 474 days. RCES was secondary to epithelial basement membrane dystrophy in 80% (n = 78 of 97), trauma (15%, n = 15 of 97), or idiopathic (4%, n = 4 of 97). Epithelial debridement with ASP was performed in 34 eyes (35%), diamond burr in 33 eyes (33%), and PTK in 30 eyes (31%). Compared with epithelial debridement with ASP (recurrence 29.4%), the recurrence rate was significantly lower for both the diamond burr (9.1%, p = 0.031) and PTK groups (10%, p = 0.048). The diamond burr and PTK groups also had a significantly higher rate of complete epithelialization at 1 week (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with epithelial debridement with ASP, diamond burr and PTK have significantly lower rates of recurrence and time to epithelialization and may be considered first for surgical management of RCES.

Remote Surgeon Virtual Presence: A Novel Telementoring Method for Live Surgical Training.

PURPOSE: We describe the first known use of telementoring in corneal surgery and technology combining a 3-dimensional microscope system, 5G live streaming technology, group chat software, and a virtual reality headset for intercontinental surgical supervision. METHODS: Three surgeons in Toronto were proctored by a surgeon in Israel in the implantation of a novel keratoprosthesis device (CorNeat KPro; Ra'anana, Israel) into cadaver eyes. In Toronto, the NGENUITY platform (Alcon) transmitted high-definition, 3-dimensional images to the proctor in Israel who viewed the live video through a GOOVIS Virtual Reality headset with subsecond latency. This was made possible by the LiveU technology (Hackensack, NJ), which is a portable device to increase the bandwidth of transmission. The primary outcome was the successful completion of CorNeat KPro implantation. After each procedure, all surgeons completed a Likert scale questionnaire that assessed opinions on telementoring. RESULTS: All participants implanted the CorNeat KPro device. There was significant satisfaction reported. A total cumulative score from the questionnaire was 149 of 150 from the operating surgeons, with a score of 135 of 150 by the proctor. All felt that there was excellent AV quality with no lag time and recommended the technology. CONCLUSIONS: Telementoring is a promising tool that can traverse large distances for ophthalmic education.

Outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract and refractive lens surgery in patients with prior radial keratotomy.

PURPOSE: To investigate outcomes of femtosecond laser (FL)-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and refractive lens exchange (RLE) in patients with prior radial keratotomy (RK). SETTING: Single clinical practice. DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: All patients with prior RK undergoing FLACS- or FL-assisted RLE surgeries over a 6-year period were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were diurnal stability and stable manifest refraction. Exclusion criteria were any other incisional corneal surgery, macular or glaucomatous pathology, or vision loss due to any other cause. Data collected included demographics, visual acuity, laser settings, and complications. Main outcome measures were intraoperative and postoperative complications and visual outcomes. Safety and efficacy indices were evaluated. RESULTS: 16 eyes of 9 patients were included. Mean age and follow-up time were 59.9 ± 9.9 years (range 44 to 75 years) and 3.3 ± 2.5 months, respectively. The mean number of RK cuts was 11.8 ± 5.3 (range 8 to 20). Mean preoperative uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were 0.9 ± 0.4 logMAR (Snellen 20/160) and 0.2 ± 0.3 logMAR (Snellen 20/30), respectively. 2 intraoperative anterior capsule tears were identified. 1 postoperative intraocular lens dislocation occurred. Postoperatively, the mean UDVA and CDVA were 0.2 ± 0.2 logMAR (20/30) and 0.1 ± 0.1 logMAR (20/25), respectively. The safety index was 1.6, and the efficacy index was 1.2. CONCLUSIONS: FLACS- or FL-assisted RLE surgery in RK patients has a high risk for anterior capsule tear and should be avoided. Thickened incisional scars are potential sources of incomplete laser penetrance. Toric lens implantation in RK eyes provide unpredictable astigmatic correction and should also be avoided.

Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in Eyes With Chronic Ocular Hypotony Following Glaucoma Surgery.

PURPOSE: To assess the outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in patients with ocular hypotony after glaucoma surgery. DESIGN: retrospective case series. METHODS: Setting: Multicenter retrospective case series. PATIENTS/INTERVENTION: Hypotonic eyes with prior glaucoma surgery that underwent DMEK between January 2013 and July 2019 in Israel (2 centers) and Canada (1 center). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre/postoperative corrected distance visual acuity, complications, 3- to 6-month endothelial cell loss, and intraocular pressure (IOP). RESULTS: The study included 11 DMEK procedures performed in 10 eyes of 4 males and 6 females aged 65-84 years. Indications for DMEK included 7 cases of pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, 2 cases of failed DMEK, and 1 case of failed Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. All patients had at least 1 previous trabeculectomy operation. One patient had 2 trabeculectomy procedures and 1 tube placement procedure. Two patients had 1 previous trabeculectomy and 1 tube placement procedure. The corrected distance visual acuity improved significantly from 1.52 ± 0.68 logarithm of minimal angle of resolution preoperatively to 0.49 ± 0.32 logarithm of minimal angle of resolution 3 months postoperatively (P < .001). Rebubbling occurred in 3 of 11 procedures (27%). Endothelial cell loss 6-12 months postoperatively was 60% ± 16% (range, 41%-89%). At the last follow-up visit, 6 of 11 (54%) of the grafts were clear. The remaining 5 grafts failed at 1-4 years postoperatively. The preoperative IOP was 5.1 ± 1.6 mm Hg (range, 1-7 mm Hg). In all but one patient, the postoperative IOP did not increase to more than 13 mm Hg. In 2 cases, the IOP decreased from 5 and 7 mm Hg preoperatively to 1 mm Hg 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSION: DMEK is a valid procedure for the treatment of corneal edema in hypotonic eyes after glaucoma procedures. These eyes benefit from improvement in vision after DMEK.

Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty in Complicated Vitrectomized Eyes.

PURPOSE: Vitrectomized eyes pose a technical challenge when performing endothelial keratoplasty (EK). The aim of the study was to compare outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in complex eyes undergoing pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) prior to or during surgery. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive eyes that underwent pars plana infusion-assisted DMEK or pull-through DSAEK which underwent PPV prior to or during the EK at a tertiary center. Included were eyes with at least 1-year follow-up. The main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Fifty-two eyes (n = 52) with a mean follow-up time of 24.6 ± 7.4 months were included. Both groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics although the DMEK group had a significantly larger proportion of Fuchs' patients (p = .009). There was no significant difference in postoperative logMAR BCVA between groups at each visit (p > .05 for all). There was a significantly higher proportion of overall serious adverse events (50.0% versus 15.4%, p = .02), retinal detachments (19.2% versus 0.0%, p = .05) and cystoid macular edema (23.1% versus 0.0%, p = .02) following DMEK. Graft detachment occurred more often following DMEK (53.9% versus 11.5%, p = .001) with no significant difference in rebubbling rates (23.1% versus 11.5%, p = .27). CONCLUSIONS: A significant and similar improvement in BCVA was achieved following DMEK and DSAEK in complex vitrectomized eyes. Patients should be advised regarding the higher rates of potential serious complications associated with a pars plana infusion DMEK in this situation.

Risk Factors for Repeat Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Graft Failure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate repeat Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (re-DMEK) success rates and to identify risk factors for re-DMEK failure. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Settings: Institutional. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: A chart review was performed, including all eyes with primary DMEK failure that underwent re-DMEK between 2013 and 2019 at the Toronto Western Hospital and the Kensington Eye Institute (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and had at least 6 months of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Predicting factors for re-DMEK outcome. RESULTS: Of 590 consecutive DMEK surgeries, 40 eyes (6.7%) were identified for having a secondary DMEK surgery after primary DMEK failure. Etiologies for primary DMEK were Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (32.5%), pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (35%), previous failed graft (27.5%), and other indications (5%). Fifty-five percent of the cohort were categorized as having a complicated anterior segment including 11 eyes with previous glaucoma surgery, 7 eyes post-penetrating keratoplasty, 4 eyes post-Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty, 3 eyes peripheral anterior synechia, 3 eyes previous pars plana vitrectomy, 2 eyes aphakia, and 1 eye each with aniridia, anterior chamber intraocular lens, and iris-fixated intraocular lens. Re-DMEK failure was documented in 12 eyes (30%) of the entire cohort. The risk factor for re-DMEK failure was the presence of a complicated anterior segment (P = .01, odds ratio = 17.0 [95% confidence interval: 1.92-150.85]), with 50% re-DMEK failure rate in this subgroup. CONCLUSION: Re-DMEK is a viable option for cases of primary DMEK failure, especially for eyes with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy as the indication for primary DMEK without other ocular morbidities; however, eyes categorized with a complicated anterior segment had high re-DMEK failure rates..

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in patients with prior glaucoma surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To present outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in eyes with prior trabeculectomy or a glaucoma drainage device (GDD). METHODS: A retrospective case series, including patients that had previously undergone trabeculectomy and/or GDD implantation, who later underwent DMEK between 2013 and 2016 at Toronto Western Hospital and the Kensington Eye Institute. Outcome measures: best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), endothelial cell (EC) density, intraoperative and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Twenty-seven eyes of 27 patients were included. All DMEK procedures were uneventful. Mean follow-up time was 14.6 ± 6.1 months. In eyes with no visually limiting comorbidities (n = 16), BSCVA improved from 1.34 ± 0.65 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/440) preoperatively to 0.51 ± 0.24 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/65) and 0.50 ± 0.33 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/65) at 6 and 12 months, respectively (p < 0.001 for both). In eyes with visually limiting comorbidities (n = 11), BSCVA improved from 1.92 ± 0.72 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/1665) preoperatively to 1.43 ± 0.83 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/540) and 1.37 ± 0.99 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/470) at 6 and 12 months, respectively (p = 0.008 and p = 0.037).Graft detachment rate was 24.1% and rebubble rate was 17.2%. Primary and secondary graft failure rates were 3.7% and 10.3%, respectively. Rejection rate was 17.2%. EC-loss rate at 6 months and 12 months was 36.7% and 50.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DMEK performed in eyes with previous trabeculectomy or a GDD is more challenging than conventional DMEK, but has good outcomes. Higher rates of graft rejection and secondary graft failure in this setting should be further evaluated in long-term studies.

Four-Year Survival Comparison of Endothelial Keratoplasty Techniques in Patients With Previous Glaucoma Surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare 4-year survival outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in eyes with previous glaucoma surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective, comparative case series, including patients with previous trabeculectomy or glaucoma drainage device implantation, who later underwent either DMEK (n = 48) or DSAEK (n = 41). Follow-up was limited to 12 to 60 months to prevent bias. Primary outcomes were graft survival and rejection. Secondary outcomes were best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), detachment/rebubble, endothelial cell loss, and intraocular pressure elevations. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, follow-up duration, and preexisting glaucoma parameters did not differ significantly between the groups. Graft survival probability after DMEK and DSAEK was 75% and 75% at 1 year, 63% and 50% at 2 years, 49% and 44% at 3 years, 28% and 33% at 4 years, and 28% and 29% at 5 years, respectively (P = 0.899 between the groups). Graft rejection rates were 20.8% and 19.5%, respectively (P = 1.000). Primary failure, rebubbling, endothelial cell loss, and intraocular pressure elevation did not differ significantly between the groups. Preoperative BSCVA did not differ between the groups (P = 0.821). Postoperative BSCVA was significantly better in the DMEK group at 6, 12, and 24 months (P < 0.001, P = 0.022, and P = 0.047, respectively). In a multivariable model (R2 = 0.576), the type of surgery was the only significant factor affecting postoperative BSCVA, in favor of DMEK (coefficient value -0.518, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with previous glaucoma surgery, DMEK and DSAEK had comparably low survival and comparably high rejection rates. Postoperative visual acuity might be better after DMEK in this setting.

Comparison of manual and femtosecond astigmatic keratotomy in the treatment of postkeratoplasty astigmatism.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of femtosecond astigmatic keratotomy (FSAK) and manual astigmatic keratotomy (AK) in treatment of postkeratoplasty astigmatism. METHODS: A retrospective, comparative, pairwise-matched case series including 150 patients who underwent either FSAK (n = 75) or manual AK (n = 75) for the treatment of astigmatism (>3.00 D) following penetrating keratoplasty or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Pairwise matching for baseline variables (age, visual acuity and astigmatism) was performed. RESULTS: Mean age was 57.5 ± 16.0 years. The FSAK group had significantly better postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (p = 0.010), uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) (p = 0.049), corneal astigmatism (p = 0.020) and manifest astigmatism (p < 0.001) compared with the manual AK group. Gain of ≥3 lines in BCVA (logMAR) was seen in five eyes (6.7%) and 21 eyes (28.0%) in manual AK and FSAK, respectively (p = 0.005). Alpins vector analysis showed lower (closer to 0) index of success (0.50 ± 0.24 and 0.79 ± 0.48, p < 0.001) and higher (closer to 1) correction index (0.94 ± 0.45 and 0.74 ± 0.55, p = 0.020) in FSAK compared with manual AK. Corneal and manifest astigmatism improved significantly in both groups, while BCVA and UCVA improved significantly in FSAK only. Repeat AK rate was 32% (24 eyes) in manual AK and 4% (three eyes) in FSAK (p < 0.001). Overcorrection-related re-suturing rate was 0% in manual AK and 8% (six eyes) in FSAK (p = 0.037). There was one microperforation (1.3%) in FSAK, and there were no occurrences of graft dehiscence, infectious keratitis or graft rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Both manual AK and FSAK were safe and effective in reducing postkeratoplasty astigmatism. FSAK had superior visual and keratometric outcomes compared with manual AK.

Factors Associated With Improvement in Vision Following Femtosecond Astigmatic Keratotomy in Post-Keratoplasty Keratoconus Patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate factors associated with improvement in vision following femtosecond astigmatic keratotomy (FSAK) in patients with keratoconus post-keratoplasty. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: The study took place in an institutional setting. This was a retrospective study that included patients with keratoconus who underwent FSAK for astigmatism following penetrating (PKP) or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK). Success was defined as improvement in 3 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study lines (doubling of the visual angle) of uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) or best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA). RESULTS: A total of 56 eyes in 56 patients with keratoconus were included. Following FSAK, there was a significant improvement in UDVA (1.30 ± 0.49 to 0.87 ± 0.58 logarithm of minimal angle of resolution [logMAR]; P < .001), BSCVA (0.40 ± 0.26 to 0.27 ± 0.29 logMAR; P <.001), and corneal astigmatism (8.69 ± 2.72 to 3.92 ± 2.13 diopter [D]; P < .001). Success was achieved in 60.7% (34/56) of cases, and this group had a higher proportion of previous PKP (73.5% vs 45.5%; P = .03), worse preoperative UDVA (1.42 ± 0.47 vs 1.11 ± 0.47 logMAR; P = .03), and a greater preoperative manifest cylinder (7.56 ± 2.26 vs 5.72 ± 2.12 D; P = .01). In multiple regression analysis, PKP (vs DALK) (odds ratio [OR]: 8.52; P = .009), worse preoperative UDVA (OR: 9.08, P = .02), and greater preoperative cylinder (OR: 1.51; P = .04) were independently associated with success, and, when combined, led to a sensitivity and specificity of 84.6% and 93.8%, respectively, in predicting success. The optimal cutoff predicting success with a preoperative cylinder was a cylinder >6.75 D. CONCLUSION: Approximately 60% of patients with keratoconus post-keratoplasty experience doubling of the visual angle following FSAK. Patients with previous PKP and a greater cylinder are more likely to benefit from this procedure. Separate nomograms for DALK and PKP patients may be warranted.

Outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in Aphakic and Aniridic Patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in aphakic and aniridic eyes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of either aphakic or aniridic patients who underwent DMEK at Toronto Western Hospital, Canada, between 2015 and 2019 was performed. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were analyzed. RESULTS: Nine eyes of 9 patients, aged 51.0 ± 8.6 years, were included (3 aniridic, 5 aphakic, and 1 combined). The average follow-up was 15.7 ± 12.7 months. The best corrected visual acuities before surgery and 3 and 6 months after surgery were 1.28 ± 0.47, 1.33 ± 0.98, and 1.03 ± 0.56 LogMAR, respectively. Six eyes (67%) had graft detachment, with 3 of them larger than 30% of the graft area. One eye (11%) developed hyphema. The overall failure rate was 88% (8 of 9 eyes), meaning only one was viable at the last follow-up. Primary graft failure was seen in 4 eyes (44%) after detachment (n = 3) and intraoperative hyphema (n = 1). Secondary failure occurred in 4 eyes (44%) at 7, 12, 15, and 36 months. The secondary failure at 36 months was after rejection. Failures were managed with penetrating keratoplasty (n = 2), repeat DMEK (n = 3), Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (n = 1), and observation because of poor vision potential (n = 2). Cumulative graft survival probabilities at 12 and 24 months were 44% and 17%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aniridic and aphakic patients experienced unacceptably high detachment and failure rates after DMEK. Before performing DMEK, the risks and benefits should be carefully weighed and perhaps other keratoplasty techniques should be used.

Four-Year Survival of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in Patients With Previous Glaucoma Surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate 4-year outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in eyes with previous glaucoma surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative case series. METHODS: Patients with previous trabeculectomy or glaucoma drainage device (GDD) implantation who later underwent DMEK (study group) were matched for follow-up duration with Fuchs dystrophy DMEK patients (control group). The minimum follow-up was 18 months. Primary outcomes included graft survival and rejection rates, and secondary outcomes included rates of detachment/rebubble, endothelial cell loss, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and glaucoma medications/surgeries. Subgroup analysis compared eyes with and without a GDD. RESULTS: Ninety-four eyes of 91 patients were included. There were 51 eyes of 49 patients in the study group (GDD = 32 eyes, no GDD = 19 eyes) and 43 eyes of 42 patients in the control group. The mean follow-up was 37.9 ± 15.2 and 33.8 ± 13.5 months, respectively (P = .322). Graft survival probability of the study group at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months was 75%, 60%, 43%, and 27%, respectively, compared with a consistent 88% in the control group (P < .001). Survival curves of study subgroups (GDD and no GDD) were significantly lower than the control group (P < .001). Rejection rates in the study and control groups were 19.6% and 2.3%, respectively (P = .010). Endothelial cell loss in the study group was 12%-22% higher than the control group at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months (P = .049, P = .027, P = .200, and P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with previous glaucoma surgery, DMEK has good early outcomes, but longer-term rejection and failure rates are high. Physicians and patients should be cognizant of the high likelihood of graft failure in this setting.

Comparison of accelerated CXL alone, accelerated CXL-ICRS, and accelerated CXL-TG-PRK in progressive keratoconus and other corneal ectasias.

PURPOSE: To compare accelerated corneal crosslinking (CXL) alone, CXL with simultaneous intrastromal corneal ring segments (CXL-ICRS), and CXL with simultaneous topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (CXL-TG-PRK) in progressive keratoconus, pellucid marginal degeneration (PMD), or laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)-induced ectasia. SETTING: The Kensington Eye Institute and Bochner Eye Institute, Toronto, Canada. DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized interventional study. METHODS: Visual and topographical outcomes using a comparative analysis adjusting for preoperative maximum keratometry (Kmax) were evaluated 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-two eyes from 375 patients with progressive keratoconus, PMD, or LASIK-induced ectasia that underwent accelerated (9 mW/cm, 10 minutes) CXL alone (n = 204), CXL-ICRS (n = 126), or CXL-TG-PRK (n = 122) were included. Change in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution uncorrected distance visual acuity was significant with CXL-ICRS (-0.31; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.24) and CXL-TG-PRK (-0.16; 95% CI, -0.24 to -0.09), but not with CXL alone. No significant differences in change were found between the 3 groups. Change in corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was significant in all 3 groups: -0.12 (95% CI, -0.15 to -0.10) with CXL alone, -0.23 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.20) with CXL-ICRS, and -0.17 (95% CI, -0.21 to -0.13) with CXL-TG-PRK. Improvement in CDVA was greater with CXL-ICRS than with CXL alone (-0.08 ± 0.02; P < .0001) and CXL-TG-PRK (-0.05 ± 0.02; P = .005). Change in Kmax was significant with CXL-ICRS [-3.21 diopters (D); 95% CI, -3.98 to -2.45] and CXL-TG-PRK (-3.69 D; 95% CI, -4.49 to -2.90), but not with CXL alone (-0.05 D; 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: CXL alone might be best for keratoconic patients who meet the inclusion criteria. CXL-ICRS might be more effective for eyes with more irregular astigmatism and worse CDVA and CXL-TG-PRK for eyes requiring improvements in irregular astigmatism but still have good CDVA.

Accelerated Corneal Cross-Linking: Efficacy, Risk of Progression, and Characteristics Affecting Outcomes. A Large, Single-Center Prospective Study.

PURPOSE: We examined the efficacy and preoperative characteristics that affect outcomes of accelerated (9 mW/cm2 for 10 minutes) corneal cross-linking (CXL). DESIGN: Prospective single-center observational cohort study. METHODS: We enrolled 612 eyes of 391 subjects with progressive keratoconus (n = 589), pellucid marginal degeneration (n = 11), and laser in situ keratomileusis-induced ectasia (n = 12). We evaluated best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), topography, refraction, endothelial cell density, corneal thickness, haze, intraocular pressure, and visual function before and 12 months after the CXL procedure. We tabulated the proportion of those with progression of maximum keratometry (Kmax). We included participant's race, age, sex, and the presence of preoperative apical scarring and environmental allergies in a multivariable linear regression model to determine the effect of these characteristics on outcomes. RESULTS: At 1 year there was no significant change in mean Kmax (n = 569). Progression of Kmax was higher in subgroups with a baseline Kmax >58 diopters (n = 191) and those 14-18 years of age (n = 53). Preoperative BSCVA, Kmax, refraction, corneal cylinder, coma, central corneal thickness, and vision function were statistically and clinically significant predictors of outcomes (P < .001). Preoperative apical scarring led to worsening haze (P = .0001), more astigmatism (P = .002), more central corneal thinning (P = .002), and was protective to the endothelium (P = .008). Race, age, and sex affected some outcomes. CONCLUSION: Mean Kmax was stable at 1 year after accelerated CXL. Younger patients and those with a higher preoperative Kmax need to be monitored closely for progression. Preoperative BSCVA, topography, refraction, CCT, and apical scarring were significant predictors of outcomes.

Stepwise Combination of Femtosecond Astigmatic Keratotomy With Phacoemulsification and Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation in Treatment of Very High Postkeratoplasty Astigmatism.

PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of stepwise combined femtosecond astigmatic keratotomy (FSAK) and phacoemulsification with toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in the treatment of very high astigmatism after either penetrating keratoplasty or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. METHODS: This is a retrospective, interventional case series including 8 eyes of 6 patients with very high astigmatism [≥8.00 diopter (D)] after either penetrating keratoplasty or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty who underwent FSAK, followed by phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation. Outcome measures were corneal and manifest astigmatism and uncorrected and best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (UCVA, BSCVA). RESULTS: The average age was 58.9 ± 5.1 years. The average follow-up time was 40.9 ± 43.8 months. Outcome measure changes after both FSAK and toric IOL implantation were: corneal astigmatism improved from 13.56 ± 4.81 D to 4.48 ± 2.83 D (P < 0.001), manifest astigmatism improved from 9.15 ± 3.86 to 1.46 ± 0.88 D (P = 0.011), UCVA improved from 1.69 ± 0.45 LogMAR (Snellen equivalent ∼20/980) to 0.23 ± 0.11 LogMAR (Snellen equivalent ∼20/33, P < 0.001), and BSCVA improved from 1.01 ± 0.71 LogMAR (Snellen equivalent ∼20/200) to 0.19 ± 0.11 LogMAR (Snellen equivalent ∼20/30, P = 0.015). BSCVA and UCVA at the last follow-up were 20/40 or better in all patients. All procedures were uneventful. Two eyes underwent photorefractive keratectomy after FSAK to regularize and further reduce astigmatism before toric IOL implantation. One patient underwent temporary compression suturing because of FSAK overcorrection. CONCLUSIONS: Combined stepwise use of FSAK and phacoemulsification with toric IOL implantation was an effective and apparently safe approach in patients with very high postkeratoplasty astigmatism. Additional treatment using photorefractive keratectomy may be beneficial in some cases.

Intraocular pressure control after trans-scleral intraocular lens fixation in glaucoma patients.

BACKGROUND: Intraocular lens fixation surgery is associated with fluctuations in intraocular pressure. This may be significantly relevant in glaucoma patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess short- and medium-term intraocular pressure control after trans-scleral intraocular lens fixation surgery in glaucoma patients. METHODS: The charts of all glaucoma patients who underwent trans-scleral intraocular lens fixation surgery with at least 6 months follow-up by a single surgeon between the years 2004 and 2017 were reviewed. Primary outcomes were intraocular pressure at 1 day and 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were hypotensive medication use and the need for further intraocular pressure lowering interventions. RESULTS: Eleven eyes of 10 patients were included in the analysis. Mean follow-up post intraocular lens fixation surgery was 54.6 months. Mean intraocular pressure before, 6 months, and last follow-up after intraocular lens fixation surgery was 15.8 ± 5.3 mmHg (range 10.6-25.3), 13.5 ± 3.8 mmHg (range 8-21, p = 0.2), and 11.8 ± 5.6 (range 6-21, p = 0.09) on a mean of 2.3 ± 1.6, 2 ± 1.6 (p = 0.23), and 1.7 ± 1.5 (p = 0.08) hypotensive medications, respectively. A pressure spike was noted in 5 of the 11 eyes on the first post-operative day (mean spike 15.2 mmHg, range 6-23). Four of 11 eyes in the study (36%) needed additional interventions to control intraocular pressure by the 6-month point. One eye required the addition of two classes of topical medications, one eye required laser trabeculoplasty, and two eyes required trabeculectomy. CONCLUSION: Over a third of glaucomatous eyes required a change in the management of their disease in the early post-operative period. Close follow-up of patients undergoing trans-scleral intraocular lens fixation surgery is warranted.

Comparison of Manual and Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty for Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of manual Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (M-DMEK) and femtosecond laser-assisted Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (F-DMEK) in treatment of penetrating keratoplasty (PK) graft failure. METHODS: Setting: Retrospective, interventional comparative case series. PatientPopulation: Included were all patients with a failed PK graft who underwent either F-DMEK (10 eyes of 10 patients) or M-DMEK (29 eyes of 29 patients) at Toronto Western Hospital and the Kensington Eye Institute between 2014 and 2019, and had 6 months of postoperative follow-up. OutcomeMeasures: Rates of graft detachment, rebubbling, rejection and failure, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), and endothelial cell (EC) density. RESULTS: Rate of significant graft detachment (detachment requiring either rebubble or repeat keratoplasty) was 10.0% in F-DMEK and 65.5% in M-DMEK (P = .003). Rebubble rate was 10.0% in F-DMEK and 58.6% in M-DMEK (P = .011). Primary failure rate was 0% in F-DMEK and 27.6% in M-DMEK (P = .086). Rates of rejection and secondary failure did not differ between the groups (P = 1.000 for both). In a multivariable analysis, F-DMEK was found to be the only independent factor significantly associated with reduced postoperative detachment. Postoperative BSCVA at 6 months returned to prefailure levels in both groups, with no significant difference between the groups at any time point. EC loss rates were 43.8% in F-DMEK and 38.0% in M-DMEK at 6 months (P = .453). CONCLUSIONS: F-DMEK is a safe and effective procedure in failed PK patients, with outcomes comparable to M-DMEK, and with reduced detachment and rebubble rates. A trend towards reduced primary failure should be further studied.