Aclaramiento corneal espontáneo tras desprendimiento del injerto en DMEK / Spontaneous corneal clearance after graft detachment in DMEK

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)

Spontaneous corneal clearance after graft detachment in DMEK.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Sequential Intrastromal Corneal Ring Segments and an Extended Range of Vision Intraocular Lens Implantation in Patients with Keratoconus and Cataract.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy, safety, and predictability of sequential Ferrara-type intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) and an extended range of vision intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in patients with keratoconus and cataract. METHODS: This study comprised patients with keratoconus and cataract that had ICRS implantation followed 6 months later by extended range of vision IOL implantation. The uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and residual refractive errors, analysed using vector analysis, were recorded preoperatively, 6 months after ICRS implantation, and 6 months after IOL implantation, respectively. RESULTS: The study enrolled 17 eyes (11 patients). The mean UDVA (logMAR scale) was 1.15 ± 0.67 preoperatively, 0.88 ± 0.69 six months after ICRS implantation (P = 0.005), and 0.27 ± 0.18 six months after IOL implantation (P < 0.0001). The CDVA changed from 0.26 ± 0.15 (logMAR) before surgery to 0.17 ± 0.08 six months after Ferrara-type ICRS implantation (P = 0.002) and to 0.07 ± 0.06 six months after IOL implantation (P < 0.0001). The spherical equivalent and the refractive cylinder declined steeply after IOL implantation (P < 0.001). The magnitude of depth of focus was 2.60 ± 1.02 D. There were no statistically significant differences in visual acuity for a defocus range from +0.50 D to -0.50 D (P > 0.1). CONCLUSION: Sequential Ferrara-type ICRS and an extended range of vision IOL implantation provided good visual and refractive outcomes, being an effective, safe, and predictable procedure for the treatment of selected cases of patients with keratoconus and cataract. In addition, this approach provides an increase of tolerance to defocus.

Surgical Options for the Refractive Correction of Keratoconus: Myth or Reality.

Keratoconus provides a decrease of quality of life to the patients who suffer from it. The treatment used as well as the method to correct the refractive error of these patients may influence on the impact of the disease on their quality of life. The purpose of this review is to describe the evidence about the conservative surgical treatment for keratoconus aiming to therapeutic and refractive effect. The visual rehabilitation for keratoconic corneas requires addressing three concerns: halting the ectatic process, improving corneal shape, and minimizing the residual refractive error. Cross-linking can halt the disease progression, intrastromal corneal ring segments can improve the corneal shape and hence the visual quality and reduce the refractive error, PRK can correct mild-moderate refractive error, and intraocular lenses can correct from low to high refractive error associated with keratoconus. Any of these surgical options can be performed alone or combined with the other techniques depending on what the case requires. Although it could be considered that the surgical option for the refracto-therapeutic treatment of the keratoconus is a reality, controlled, randomized studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are needed to determine which refractive procedure and/or sequence are most suitable for each case.

Comparison of visual and refractive results of Toric Implantable Collamer Lens with bioptics for myopic astigmatism.

PURPOSE: To compare visual and refractive results of Toric Implantable Collamer Lens (TICL) and bioptics (ICL plus excimer corneal surgery) to treat myopic astigmatism. METHODS: Eighty-one eyes underwent TICL implantation and 83 eyes were treated with bioptics (corneal ablation was performed between 1.5 and 6 months after ICL implantation). Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refraction, adverse events, safety, and efficacy were evaluated 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: At 12 months postoperatively, the mean spherical equivalent was -0.15 ± 0.36 diopters (D) in the TICL group and -0.08 ± 0.26 D in the bioptics group (p = 0.099). Sixty-six (81.5 %) and 78 (94.0 %) eyes were within ±0.50 D for TICL and bioptics groups, respectively. The mean Snellen UDVA was not statistically different between both procedures (p = 0.909); 53 (65.4 %) and 54 (65.1 %) eyes achieved at least 20/25 or better in TICL and bioptics groups, respectively. No eye had lost more than two lines of CDVA, and 32.1 % of eyes (26/81) in the TICL group and 57.8 % of eyes (48/83) in the bioptics group had better postoperative UDVA than preoperative CDVA (p < 0.001). Safety was not statistically different between groups (p = 0.464) while efficacy was significantly higher in the bioptics group (p = 0.000). Two eyes with a TICL were treated to correct TICL decentration. CONCLUSIONS: Bioptics showed slightly better outcomes in some clinical measures such as uncorrected visual acuity, efficacy, and refractive predictability. TICL implantation shows reliable results similar to bioptics. A single procedure with TICL implantation might be preferred, eliminating the inherent risks of laser treatments and the risks of a second surgical procedure.