ABSTRACT
El desprendimiento de la membrana de Descemet es una complicación potencial tras la queratoplastia endotelial de la membrana de Descemet (DMEK, acrónimo en inglés de Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty). En este artículo presentamos un caso clínico de una cirugía DMEK en un caso complicado, que presentó un desprendimiento casi completo del injerto y posteriormente una opacificación de este y la formación de una seudocámara anterior. En noviembre del 2020, se realizó una cirugía DMEK a un paciente de 64 años debido a una descompensación endotelial. Tres meses después del DMEK, se observó el injerto desprendido y parcialmente adherido, fibrótico en la cámara anterior y formando una seudocámara anterior. Sin embargo, la córnea se mantuvo totalmente transparente con un recuento endotelial de aproximadamente 1.204 células/mm2 y la agudeza visual con corrección fue 20/25. Tres meses más tarde, se objetivó una opacificación significativa del injerto despegado y la agudeza visual disminuyó a 20/63. Procedimos a la extracción del injerto sin realizar una segunda DMEK. Diez meses más tarde, la córnea permaneció transparente con un recuento endotelial de 510 células/mm2 y la agudeza visual con corrección fue 20/25 (AU)
Descemet Membrane detachment is a potential complication after Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK). Here, we present a unique case of a DMEK surgery in a complicated eye that suffered a nearly complete DMEK graft detachment and later a graft opacification with a pseudo-anterior chamber. In Mid-November 2020, a planned DMEK was performed in a 64-year-old male patient due to corneal decompensation. Four months after DMEK, a fibrotic DMEK graft was seen across the anterior chamber with a pseudo-anterior chamber; however, the recipient cornea showed complete clearance with an endothelial cell count of about 1204 cells/mm2 and a best-corrected visual acuity of 20/25. Three months later, we observed a significant opacification of the detached graft, and the best-corrected distance visual acuity decreased to 20/63. We proceeded with the graft removal without performing a second DMEK. Ten months after graft removal, the cornea remained clear with an endothelial cell count of about 510 cells/mm2, and the best-corrected visual acuity was 20/25 (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Corneal Diseases/surgery , Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty , Endothelium, Corneal/surgery , Transplantation, Autologous , Visual Acuity , Slit Lamp , Tomography, Optical Coherence , Corneal Diseases/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
Descemet Membrane detachment is a potential complication after Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK). Here, we present a unique case of a DMEK surgery in a complicated eye that suffered a nearly complete DMEK graft detachment and later a graft opacification with a pseudo-anterior chamber. In Mid-November 2020, a planned DMEK was performed in a 64-year-old male patient due to corneal decompensation. Four months after DMEK, a fibrotic DMEK graft was seen across the anterior chamber with a pseudo-anterior chamber; however, the recipient cornea showed complete clearance with an endothelial cell count of about 1204 cells/mm2 and a best-corrected visual acuity of 20/25. Three months later, we observed a significant opacification of the detached graft, and the best-corrected distance visual acuity decreased to 20/63. We proceeded with the graft removal without performing a second DMEK. Ten months after graft removal, the cornea remained clear with an endothelial cell count of about 510 cells/mm2, and the best-corrected visual acuity was 20/25.
Subject(s)
Corneal Diseases , Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , Endothelium, Corneal , Visual Acuity , Cornea , Corneal Diseases/surgeryABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Direct additional therapy is advised for type-Ia endoleaks detected on completion angiography after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Additional intraoperative endovascular procedures are, however, often challenging or not possible, and direct open conversion is unattractive. The results of a selective, conservative strategy for patients with primary type-Ia endoleak has been analysed. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-centre study (UMC, Utrecht, NL). From 2004 to 2008, all patients with a primary type-Ia endoleak and suitable anatomy for EVAR, stentgraft oversizing ≥15%, and optimal deployment were included. Complications during follow-up were studied and all sequential CTA scans were reviewed. These were compared with the remaining patients, treated during the same period. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included (14 male, median age 77, range 67-85) with a median aneurysm diameter of 60 mm (48-80), an aneurysm neck diameter of 26 mm (21-32), a neck length of 29 mm (11-39), and infrarenal angulation of 49° (31-90). One patient suffered rupture 2 days after EVAR - leading to the only AAA-related death. Eight of the 15 type-Ia endoleaks disappeared spontaneously on the first postoperative CTA, obtained within 1 week of EVAR. On the second postoperative CTA, obtained a median of 5 months (1-12) after EVAR, all remaining endoleaks had sealed. One recurrence occurred at 4.85 years. During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, there were five secondary interventions. Compared with controls, there were more secondary (or recurrent) type-1a endoleaks (13% vs. 4%), endograft migrations (13% vs. 3%), sac growths (33% vs. 16%), and secondary interventions (33% vs. 23%). None of these differences however, were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: All but one of the primary type-Ia endoleaks sealed spontaneously. Until sealing, the risk of rupture persisted, but subsequently only one recurrence of type-Ia endoleak was seen. In selected patients, a conservative approach for primary type-Ia endoleaks may be justified.
