Safety and efficacy of a laser refractive procedure in eyes with previous keratoplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Post-keratoplasty (KP) patients' visual acuity can be severely limited by ametropia. Irregular astigmatisms are frequently encountered in these patients and is commonly associated with high degrees of hyperopia or myopia. This systematic review investigates the safety and efficacy of laser refractive surgery for post KP vision correction. 31 studies with 683 participants (732 eyes) enrolled in this review. Mean astigmatism improved significantly (mean difference [MD] = -2.70, 95% CI, -3.13 to -2.28, P < .0001). As well as Mean spherical equivalent (MD = -3.35, 95% CI, -3.92 to -2.78, P < .0001). From 586 participants 5.8% lost 2 or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity after treatment. The proportion of eyes with 20/40 uncorrected distance visual acuity or better was reported and the percentage was 46.79% overall. Laser refractive procedures (laser in situ keratomileusis [LASIK] or photorefractive keratectomy [PRK] or transepithelial PRK) on eyes with corneal transplantation were found to be relatively safe and effective. Our systematic review shows there is improvement in all outcomes. Main adverse effects were haze for PRK and epithelial ingrowth for LASIK.

Endophthalmitis in Eyes With the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis: Incidence, Recurrence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and recurrence of Boston type I keratoprosthesis (KPro)-associated endophthalmitis, and its microbiological profile, risk factors, and outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 158 consecutive KPro procedures with a median follow-up of 78.4 months. Medical charts were reviewed for ocular history, contact lens and topical antibiotic use, visual acuity, and complications. For eyes with endophthalmitis, time to infection, culture results, and recurrences were collected. Cox regression analyses identified risk factors for endophthalmitis and compared the risk for visual failure, KPro retention, and globe loss between eyes with and without endophthalmitis. RESULTS: The incidence and recurrence rates of endophthalmitis were of 1.7% and 6.0% per procedure-year, respectively. First episodes occurred at a median of 18.6 months. Eight of 18 episodes (44%) were culture positive, isolating mainly Gram-positive bacteria (7 [88%]). Previous ocular burn (hazard ratio: 7.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.91-28.15), infectious keratitis (5.09, 1.70-15.22), corneal melt (4.55, 1.50-13.83), and postoperative contact lens wear (4.19, 1.17-15.04) were risk factors. Eyes with endophthalmitis did not have a higher risk for visual failure (1.74, 0.78-3.91) but were more likely to not retain the KPro (2.81, 1.15-6.88) and undergo evisceration (2.81, 1.15-6.88). All eyes lost ≥ 2 lines of vision during the endophthalmitis episode. CONCLUSIONS: Endophthalmitis is rare but vision and globe threatening in eyes with KPro. Given the increased associated risk, corneal melts and infectious keratitis must be promptly treated, postoperative contact lenses should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and patients with ocular burns might require more aggressive antimicrobial prophylaxis.

PresbyPRK vs presbyLASIK using the SUPRACOR algorithm and micromonovision in presbyopic hyperopic patients: visual and refractive results at 12 months.

PURPOSE: To compare the visual outcome and refractive results between presbyopic photorefractive keratectomy (presbyPRK) and presbyopic laser in situ keratomileusis (presbyLASIK) in presbyopic hyperopic patients using micromonovision and the SUPRACOR algorithm. SETTING: Percy Military Hospital and private Laser Victor Hugo Center, France. DESIGN: Observational retrospective nonrandomized. METHODS: Twenty-three patients who had undergone presbyPRK or presbyLASIK were included and followed up for 12-months. Far and near visual acuity without correction in monocular and binocular, measurement of distance visual acuity with correction in monocular, evaluation of spherical equivalent (SE), aberrometry, and patient satisfaction were measured and analyzed in this study. RESULTS: The study included 26 eyes of 13 patients in the presbyLASIK group and 20 eyes of 10 patients in the presbyPRK group. The mean age was 55.43 ± 4.6 years. Uncorrected binocular distance visual acuity was 0.030 ± 0.05 logMAR in the presbyLASIK group and 0 logMAR in the presbyPRK group (P = .066). Binocular near visual acuity without correction was 0.21 ± 0.11 logMAR in the presbyLASIK group and 0.30 ± 0.15 logMAR in the presbyPRK group (P = .0398). For the dominant eyes, the SE was -0.08 ± 0.48 diopters (D) in the presbyLASIK group and 0.16 ± 0.82 D in the presbyPRK group (P = .3995). For nondominant eyes, the SE was -0.44 ± 0.50 D in the presbyLASIK group and 0.12 ± 0.65 D in the presbyPRK group (P = .0254). CONCLUSIONS: PresbyPRK and presbyLASIK were comparable in efficacy, stability, predictability, and safety. PresbyPRK could be a safe and effective surgical alternative for the hyperopic presbyopic patient.