Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty compared with ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: This study aims to compare the clinical outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) in patients with corneal endothelial dysfunction due to Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy or pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis using a literature search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP databases. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared DMEK and UT-DSAEK (graft<130 µm), with a follow-up of ≥12 months, published until 20 February 2022. We used the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies-of Interventions system for cohort studies. RESULTS: Out of 144 records, 8 studies (3 RCTs, 2 fellow-eye studies and 3 cohort studies) were included, encompassing 376 eyes, (N=187 DMEK vs N=189 UT-DSAEK). The 12-month logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was better post-DMEK (mean difference -0.06 (95% CI -0.10 to -0.02)), but with higher rebubbling risk: OR 2.76 (95% CI 1.46 to 5.22). Heterogeneity was significant I2=57%. Findings were consistent when excluding retrospective studies, including only studies with low risk of bias or RCTs only. An analysis of studies with mean DSAEK grafts <70 µm showed no significant difference in BCVA between the procedures. Publication bias was found in the BCVA analysis (Egger's test p=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Post-DMEK BCVA is superior to post-UT-DSAEK when using <130 µm grafts. DSAEK grafts <70 µm may not significantly differ from DMEK. The higher risk of rebubbling with DMEK necessitates an appropriate selection of patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022340805.

Azithromycin and Sildenafil May Have Protective Effects on Retinal Ganglion Cells via Different Pathways: Study in a Rodent Microbead Model.

Decreased blood flow to the optic nerve (ON) and neuroinflammation are suggested to play an important role in the pathophysiology of glaucoma. This study investigated the potential neuroprotective effect of azithromycin, an anti-inflammatory macrolide, and sildenafil, a selective phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor, on retinal ganglion cell survival in a glaucoma model, which was induced by microbead injection into the right anterior chamber of 50 wild-type (WT) and 30 transgenic toll-like receptor 4 knockout (TLR4KO) mice. Treatment groups included intraperitoneal azithromycin 0.1 mL (1 mg/0.1 mL), intravitreal sildenafil 3 µL, or intraperitoneal sildenafil 0.1 mL (0.24 µg/3 µL). Left eyes served as controls. Microbead injection increased intraocular pressure (IOP), which peaked on day 7 in all groups and on day 14 in azithromycin-treated mice. Furthermore, the retinas and ON of microbead-injected eyes showed a trend of increased expression of inflammatory- and apoptosis-related genes, mainly in WT and to a lesser extent in TLR4KO mice. Azithromycin reduced the BAX/BCL2 ratio, TGFß, and TNFα levels in the ON and CD45 expression in WT retina. Sildenafil activated TNFα-mediated pathways. Both azithromycin and sildenafil exerted a neuroprotective effect in WT and TLR4KO mice with microbead-induced glaucoma, albeit via different pathways, without affecting IOP. The relatively low apoptotic effect observed in microbead-injected TLR4KO mice suggests a role of inflammation in glaucomatous damage.

Continuous Curvilinear Capsulorhexis - A Practical Review.

BACKGROUND: Continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis (CCC) has become the gold standard technique for anterior capsulotomy, a cardinal development in modern cataract surgery. CCC enables safer and relatively convenient access to the crystalline lens, however it is more challenging to master than older methods. Understanding the physics underlying this procedure is key to achieving the desired results and avoiding complications. PURPOSE: To review and present the established information about CCC, and to create a practical guide to this important step in cataract surgery. METHODS: A literature review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases, with emphasis on up-to-date information. The first part of this review describes the evolution of CCC and discusses the different approaches, the various instruments available, tips and pearls and the general setup for best results. The second half covers more recent innovations and common complications, and strategies to prevent or manage them. This paper provides a practical review of all aspects of CCC.