Photorefractive keratectomy after DMEK for corneal decompensation by phakic IOL.

PURPOSE: To provide the first description of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the correction of mild residual refractive error after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). METHODS: Case report. RESULTS: A 45 year-old woman presenting with phakic intraocular lens (PIOL)-related corneal decompensation underwent staged DMEK surgery following PIOL explantation and cataract surgery. Eighteen months after DMEK, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was 20/60 and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 20/22, with a stable refraction. The patient requested refractive surgery to decrease spectacle dependance, and wavefront-optimized PRK was performed. At last follow-up observation thirty-three months after PRK (54 months after DMEK surgery), UDVA was 20/20, the cornea remained clear without signs of rejection or endothelial failure, and the endothelial cell loss rate was not accelerated after PRK. CONCLUSION: Since long-term visual and refractive stability can be expected after DMEK, PRK may be a particular safe and effective approach for the correction of mild residual refractive errors after DMEK. However, we consider that surgeons must exercise caution when considering keratorefractive surgery in these eyes due to postoperative changes in corneal curvature and thickness, and further studies are encouraged.

Repeat Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty for Failed Primary Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty at a Referral Center for Keratoplasty in Spain: DIMOEK Study.

PURPOSE: To analyze the clinical results of repeat Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (re-DMEK) for failed primary DMEK graft at a referral center for keratoplasty in Spain. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional, comparative case series. METHODS: From a single-center, single-surgeon series of 189 consecutive DMEK surgeries, 14 (7.41%) were re-DMEK eyes. The primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity change (ΔBCVA, logarithm of minimal angle of resolution [logMAR]) from baseline (before first DMEK) to last follow-up. Secondary outcomes were ΔBCVA from baseline at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, endothelial cell loss (%ECL), rebubbling rate, and re-DMEK graft failure. Outcomes were compared with an age-matched control group of 18 successful primary DMEK eyes. RESULTS: After re-DMEK (median follow-up time 14.5 [42.5] months), mean BCVA improved from 0.55 (0.42) logMAR (Snellen 20/71 [20/53]) at baseline to 0.09 (0.26) logMAR (Snellen 20/25 [20/36]; P = .037). ΔBCVA from baseline was statistically significant at months 3 (P = .028), 6 (P = .023), and 12 (P = .012), and ΔBCVA was significant observed between months 6 and 12 (P = .028). BCVA differences between patient groups were statistically nonsignificant at 3 (P = .397), 6 (P = .468), and 12 months (P = .647). Mean %ECL in re-DMEK eyes with follow-up ≥12 months was 48.2 (15.1%), and the rebubbling rate was 28.6%; differences between groups were statistically nonsignificant for both variables (P = .580 and P = .669, respectively). Three re-DMEK eyes developed graft failure, all achieving final BCVA ≤0.30 logMAR (Snellen ≥20/40) after tertiary keratoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat DMEK produces significant, continuous visual improvement after failed primary DMEK. Although visual outcomes and %ECL were comparable to primary DMEK, there was a relatively high rate of graft failure after re-DMEK.