Incidence and Outcomes of Sterile Multifocal Inflammatory Keratitis and Diffuse Lamellar Keratitis After SMILE.

PURPOSE: To report the incidence outcomes of sterile multifocal inflammatory keratitis and diffuse lamellar keratitis (DLK) after small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in a large population. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of a population of 4,000 consecutive eyes treated by SMILE at the London Vision Clinic using the VisuMax femtosecond laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). The inclusion criterion was to have presented with inflammatory keratitis after SMILE. In some cases after SMILE, the inflammatory keratitis presented as sterile multifocal interface keratitis uncharacteristic of classic DLK. The incidence was measured and categorized as primary or secondary by presenting appearance, grade, and time to presentation. Patients were observed for 1 year after surgery and standard outcomes analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 4,000 eye population, there were 18 cases (0.45%) of DLK grade 1 or 2. All cases were managed and resolved with topical steroid therapy. Of these, 12 cases (67%) were of classic appearance and 6 cases (33%) presented as sterile multifocal inflammatory keratitis. DLK was primary in nature in 11 cases (61%) and secondary in 7 cases (39%). Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 or better in 93% of eyes. No patients lost any lines of corrected distance visual acuity and there was no change in contrast sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: DLK occurred after SMILE with an incidence of 0.45% in this population. Topical steroid therapy resolved the DLK in all cases with no sequelae and no adverse effect on refractive or visual outcome at 1 year postoperatively. A unique type of DLK presentation can occur after SMILE, characterized by multiple focal sterile inflammatory spots. Management is the same as for classic DLK, but with a lower threshold for performing an interface washout. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(11):751-759.].

Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure.

BACKGROUND: Corneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Both are still performed worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in people with Fuch's endothelial dystropy (FED) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 11 August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised paired, contralateral-eye studies in any setting where DMEK was compared with DSAEK to treat people with corneal endothelial failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured in logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR). Secondary outcomes were endothelial cell count, graft rejection, primary graft failure and graft dislocation. We graded the risk of bias of non-randomised studies (NRSs) using ROBINS-I. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any RCTs but found four non-randomised studies (NRSs) including 72 participants (144 eyes), who had received DSAEK in the first eye followed by DMEK in the fellow eye. All the studies included adult participants where there was evidence of FED and endothelial failure requiring a corneal transplant for the treatment of visual impairment. We did not find any studies that included PBK. The trials were published between 2011 and 2015, and we assessed them as high risk of bias due to potential unknown confounding factors since DSAEK preceded DMEK in all participants. Two studies reported results at 12 months, one at 6 months, and one between 6 and 24 months. At one year, using DMEK in cases of endothelial failure may result in better BCVA compared with DSAEK (mean difference (MD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.10 logMAR, 4 studies, 140 eyes, low-certainty evidence). None of the participants had severe visual loss (BCVA of 1.0 logMAR or more; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding endothelial cell count data (4 studies, 134 eyes) it is hard to draw any conclusions since two studies suggested no difference and the other two reported that DMEK provides a higher cell density at one year (very low-certainty evidence). No primary graft failure and only one graft rejection were recorded over four studies (144 eyes) (very low-certainty evidence). The most common complications reported were graft dislocations, which were recorded in one or two out of 100 participants with DSAEK but were more common using DMEK, although this difference could not be precisely estimated (risk ratio (RR) 5.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 19.3; 4 studies, 144 eyes, very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review included studies conducted on people with corneal endothelium failure due to FED for whom both DMEK and DSAEK can be considered, and found low-certainty evidence that DMEK provides some advantage in terms of final BCVA, at the cost of more graft dislocations needing 're-bubbling' (very low-certainty of evidence).

Incidence and Outcomes of Optical Zone Enlargement and Recentration After Previous Myopic LASIK by Topography-Guided Custom Ablation.

PURPOSE: To report the incidence, visual and refractive outcomes, optical zone enlargement, and recentration using topography-guided CRS-Master TOSCA II software with the MEL 80 excimer laser (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) after primary myopic laser refractive surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 73 eyes (40 patients) with complaints of night vision disturbances due to either a decentration or small optical zone following a primary myopic laser refractive surgery procedure using the MEL 80 laser. Multiple ATLAS topography scans were imported into the CRS-Master software for topography-guided ablation planning. The topography-guided re-treatment procedure was performed as either a LASIK flap lift, a new LASIK flap, a side cut only, or photorefractive keratectomy. Axial curvature maps were analyzed using a fixed grid and set of concentric circles superimposed to measure the topographic optical zone diameter and centration. Follow-up was 12 months. RESULTS: The incidence of use in the population of myopic treatments during the study period was 0.79% (73 of 9,249). The optical zone diameter was increased by 11% from a mean of 5.65 to 6.32 mm, with a maximum change of 2 mm in one case. Topographic decentration was reduced by 64% from a mean of 0.58 to 0.21 mm. There was a 44% reduction in spherical aberration, 53% reduction in coma, and 39% reduction in total higher order aberrations. A subjective improvement in night vision symptoms was reported by 93%. Regarding efficacy, 82% of eyes reached 20/20 and 100% reached 20/32 (preoperative CDVA was 20/20 or better in 90%). Regarding safety, no eyes lost two lines of CDVA and 27% gained one line. Regarding predictability, 71% of re-treatments were within ±0.50 diopters. CONCLUSIONS: Topography-guided ablation was effective in enlarging the optical zone, recentering the optical zone, and reducing higher order aberrations. Topography-guided custom ablation appears to be an effective method for re-treatment procedures of symptomatic patients after myopic LASIK. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(2):121-130.].

Identification of [4-[4-(methylsulfonyl)phenyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyrimidinyl] amines and ethers as potent and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.

A novel series of [4-[4-(methylsulfonyl)phenyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyrimidine-based cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, which have a different arrangement of substituents compared to the more common 1,2-diarylheterocycle based molecules, have been discovered. For example, 2-(butyloxy)-4-[4-(methylsulfonyl)phenyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)pyrimidine (47), a member of the 2-pyrimidinyl ether series, has been shown to be a potent and selective inhibitor with a favourable pharmacokinetic profile, high brain penetration and good efficacy in rat models of hypersensitivity.