RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes following deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in contralateral eyes of the same patients. METHODS: In this retrospective, comparative case series, clinical outcome data included best-corrected visual acuity, refractive spherical equivalent, refractive astigmatism, endothelial cell density, endothelial cell loss, central corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure, which were evaluated at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty. Additionally, complications were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-two eyes (26 patients) were included, of which 19 patients had keratoconus, 6 had stromal dystrophy, and 1 had post-laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis ectasia. The mean follow-up was 44.1 ± 10.5 months in the deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty Group and 47.9 ± 11.9 months in the penetrating keratoplasty Group. No significant differences were observed in the mean best-corrected visual acuity, refractive spherical equivalent, refractive astigmatism, and central corneal thickness between the deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty Groups during follow-up. The endothelial cell density was significantly higher in the deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty Group than in the penetrating keratoplasty Group at 24 and 36 months postoperatively (p=0.022 and 0.013, respectively). Endothelial cell loss was significantly lower in the deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty Group than in the penetrating keratoplasty Group at 24 and 36 months postoperatively (p=0.025 and 0.001, respectively). Intraocular pressure was significantly lower in the deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty Group than in the penetrating keratoplasty Grroup at 6 months postoperatively (p=0.015). Microperforation occurred in 4 eyes (15%) during deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty surgery; however, penetrating keratoplasty was not required. No endothelial rejection occurred in the penetrating keratoplasty Group during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Over the 3-year follow-up, endothelial cell loss and intraocular pressure in the deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty Group were significantly lower than those in the penetrating keratoplasty Group, while visual and refractive results were similar.
RESUMEN
ABSTRACT Purpose: To evaluate the clinical course and management of infectious interface keratitis after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Methods: A total of 352 cases that had undergone Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with infectious interface keratitis during follow-up were analyzed. The microbiological analyses, time to infection onset, clinical findings, follow-up duration, treatment, and post-treatment corrected distance visual acuity were recorded. Results: IIK was detected in eight eyes of eight cases. Three fungal and three bacterial pathogens were identified in all cases. All patients received medical treatment according to culture sensitivity. Antifungal treatment was initiated in two cases with no growth on culture, with a preliminary diagnosis of fungal interface keratitis. Intrastromal antifungal injections were performed in all patients with fungal infections. The median time to infection onset was 164 days (range: 2-282 days). The postoperative infectious interface keratitis developed in the early period in two cases. The mean follow-up duration was 13.4 ± 6.2 months (range: 6-26 months). Re-Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty was performed in two patients (25%) and therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty in four patients (50%) who did not recover with medical treatment. The final corrected distance visual acuity was 20/40 or better in five patients (62.5%). Conclusion: The diagnosis and treatment of infectious interface keratitis following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty are challenging. Early surgical intervention should be preferred in the absence of response to medical treatment. Better graft survival and visual acuity can be achieved with therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty and re-Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in patients with infectious interface keratitis.
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar o curso clínico e o manejo da ceratite infecciosa de interface após ceratoplastia endotelial da membrana de Descemet. Métodos: Um total de 352 casos submetidos a ceratoplastia endotelial da membrana de Descemet foram revisados retrospectivamente. Pacientes com ceratite infecciosa de interface foram analisados durante o acompanhamento. As análises microbiológicas, o tempo até o início da infecção, os achados clínicos, a duração do acompanhamento, o tratamento e a acuidade visual para longe corrigida pós-tratamento foram registrados. Resultados: Ceratite infecciosa de interface foi detectada em 8 olhos de 8 casos. Três patógenos fúngicos e três bacterianos foram identificados em todos os casos e receberam tratamento médico de acordo com a sensibilidade da cultura. O tratamento antifúngico foi iniciado em dois casos sem crescimento em cultura, com diagnóstico preliminar de ceratite infecciosa fúngica. Injeções antifúngicas intraestromais foram usadas em todos os casos com infecções fúngicas. O tempo médio para o início da infecção foi de 164 dias (variação: 2-282 dias). A ceratite infecciosa de interface pós-operatória desenvolveu-se no período inicial em dois casos. A duração média do acompanhamento foi de 13,4 ± 6,2 meses (variação: 6-26 meses). A ceratoplastia endotelial de membrana de Descemet foi realizada em dois casos (25%) e ceratoplastia penetrante terapêutica em quatro casos (50%) que não se recuperaram com tratamento médico. A acuidade visual para longe corrigida final foi de 20/40 ou melhor em 5/8 (62,5%) dos pacientes. Conclusões: O diagnóstico e o tratamento da ceratite infecciosa de interface após ceratoplastia endotelial da membrana de Descemet são difíceis. A intervenção cirúrgica precoce deve ser o procedimento preferido se não houver resposta ao tratamento médico. Melhor sobrevida do enxerto e melhor acuidade visual podem ser alcançadas com ceratoplastia penetrante terapêutica e ceratoplastia endotelial da membrana de Descemet em pacientes com ceratite infecciosa de interface
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical course and management of infectious interface keratitis after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. METHODS: A total of 352 cases that had undergone Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with infectious interface keratitis during follow-up were analyzed. The microbiological analyses, time to infection onset, clinical findings, follow-up duration, treatment, and post-treatment corrected distance visual acuity were recorded. RESULTS: IIK was detected in eight eyes of eight cases. Three fungal and three bacterial pathogens were identified in all cases. All patients received medical treatment according to culture sensitivity. Antifungal treatment was initiated in two cases with no growth on culture, with a preliminary diagnosis of fungal interface keratitis. Intrastromal antifungal injections were performed in all patients with fungal infections. The median time to infection onset was 164 days (range: 2-282 days). The postoperative infectious interface keratitis developed in the early period in two cases. The mean follow-up duration was 13.4 ± 6.2 months (range: 6-26 months). Re-Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty was performed in two patients (25%) and therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty in four patients (50%) who did not recover with medical treatment. The final corrected distance visual acuity was 20/40 or better in five patients (62.5%). CONCLUSION: The diagnosis and treatment of infectious interface keratitis following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty are challenging. Early surgical intervention should be preferred in the absence of response to medical treatment. Better graft survival and visual acuity can be achieved with therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty and re-Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in patients with infectious interface keratitis.