Intraorbital Graphite Foreign Body With a Delayed Presentation of Optic Neuropathy.

Traumatic penetrating injuries to the orbit from pencils, while uncommon, have a plethora of presentations, both acute and delayed. With the most incidents occurring in the pediatric population where obtaining a detailed history is difficult, the ability to effectively evaluate and diagnose these injuries is cumbersome, yet important. The authors report a patient who presented with optic neuropathy, blepharoptosis, and strabismus 10 months after an orbital injury with pencil graphite.

A mysterious myopic surprise.

A 73-year-old man with an ocular history of inactive age-related macular degeneration and chronic angle-closure glaucoma (CACG) in both eyes recently underwent femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery/phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with simultaneous Hydrus microstent (Ivantis, Inc.) implantation in the left eye. Although there was some reported subincisional iris prolapse due to intraoperative floppy iris, the case was otherwise uneventful according to the referring surgeon. Two months postoperatively, he was referred to our office for a myopic surprise of approximately 2.0 diopters (D) in the left eye (Figure 1JOURNAL/jcrs/04.03/02158034-202202000-00022/figure1/v/2022-01-26T192641Z/r/image-tiff). Of note, he has a distant history of acute ACG and complicated cataract surgery in the right eye with a failed trabeculectomy. He subsequently had laser peripheral iridoplasty to pull the iris away from the angle in the right eye (Figure 2JOURNAL/jcrs/04.03/02158034-202202000-00022/figure2/v/2022-01-26T192641Z/r/image-tiff). His topical intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications at presentation included dorzolamide-timolol 1 drop twice daily in the left eye and 1 drop of timolol in the right eye once daily. His past medical history is significant for hypertension and benign prostatic hyperplasia, and his oral medications include Tamsulosin (Flomax), Irbasartan (Avapro), and Atenolol. On examination, he had an UCDVA of 20/20 in the right eye and 20/80 in the left eye, and a BCDVA of 20/20 in the right eye and 20/25 in the left eye. His manifest refraction was plano in the right eye and 1.50 -0.75 × 90 in the left eye. IOP measured 19 mm Hg in the right eye and 26 mm Hg in the left eye. Pupil examination revealed a nonreactive pupil in the right eye and a round sluggish pupil in the left eye without an obvious relative afferent pupillary defect. Extraocular motility and confrontational visual fields were full in both eyes. On slitlamp examination, pertinent findings included the following: 1+ corneal guttata without edema in both eyes; anterior chambers were shallow but adequate in both eyes with scattered peripheral anterior synechiae in the right eye and a uniformly shallow but adequate chamber in the left eye; there was no cell or flare in either eye. Iris findings included a surgical pupil with a fibrotic pupillary membrane, laser iridoplasty scars with scattered temporal transillumination defects (TIDs) in the right eye, and 2.5 clock hours of TIDs and a patent peripheral iridotomy at 1 o'clock in the left eye; lens examination revealed centered posterior chamber IOLs with open posterior capsules in both eyes and lens pitting in the left eye. Pertinent findings on dilated fundus examination included a cup-to-disc ratio of 0.3 in both eyes with good neuroretinal rims and macular examination revealed medium-sized drusen with pigment clumping in both eyes and no active choroidal neovascular membranes. The remainder of the examination was unremarkable. What is the etiology of this myopic surprise? What diagnostic testing will help confirm the diagnosis and what are the best management options for this patient?

Simultaneous Presentation of Uveitic Disc Edema and Papilledema in an Adult.

PURPOSE: To present a case of simultaneous uveitic disc edema and increased intracranial pressure (IICP) in an adult. METHODS: Retrospective case report. Patients. A 29-year-old woman affected by bilateral optic disc edema from bilateral posterior uveitis complicated by IICP with papilledema. RESULTS: Laboratory workup was negative for infectious and systemic inflammatory causes of uveitis. Computed Tomography scan of the chest was negative for Sarcoidosis. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the brain and orbits revealed a partially empty sella, bilateral posterior globe flattening without optic nerve sheath enhancement, masses, white matter lesions, or meningeal enhancement. Cerebral Magnetic Resonance Venography showed narrowing of the right and left transverse sinuses without thromboses. Prednisone was initiated for the uveitis which improved the vision but caused weight gain. Neurology evaluation with a lumbar puncture in the lateral decubitus position revealed elevated opening pressure and otherwise normal cerebrospinal fluid. Ocular ultrasonography was considered but not available to measure optic nerve sheath diameter. Oral acetazolamide 1000 mg twice daily was started for papilledema as prednisone was tapered. Periocular steroid and intravitreal bevacizumab injections were used for sight threatening cystoid macular edema and choroidal neovascularization, respectively. Discussion. While previously described in children, we report the first known case of bilateral uveitic disc edema and papilledema in an adult. This report will discuss recommendations for evaluation of these rarely concurrent conditions and therapy for both uveitic disc edema and papilledema.

Assessing the Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Donor Corneal Endothelial Cell Density.

PURPOSE: To quantify changes in endothelial cell density (ECD) of donor corneal tissue in relation to the presence or absence of a medical history of diabetes mellitus diagnosis, treatment, and complications. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for all corneas collected at Iowa Lions Eye Bank between January 2012 and December 2015. For purposes of analysis, donor corneas were divided into 4 groups: nondiabetic, non-insulin-dependent diabetic, insulin-dependent diabetic without medical complications due to diabetes, and insulin-dependent diabetic with medical complications due to diabetes. ECD values (obtained through specular microscopy) and transplant suitability for endothelial transplantation (determined by the standard protocol of the eye bank) were compared among groups using linear mixed model analysis. RESULTS: In total, 4185 corneas from 2112 donors were included for analysis. Insulin-dependent diabetic samples with medical complications due to diabetes (N = 231 from 119 donors) showed lower ECD values compared with nondiabetic samples (-102 cells/mm, P = 0.049) and non-insulin-dependent diabetic samples (-117 cells/mm, P = 0.031). ECD values did not differ significantly among the remaining groups. The likelihood of suitability for endothelial transplantation did not differ among all 4 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Corneas from donors with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and medical complications resulting from the disease have lower mean ECD values compared with other donors. However, our analysis suggests that these corneas are equally likely to be included in the donor pool for corneal transplantation. Additional studies are needed to determine the mechanism(s) contributing to cell loss in donors with advanced diabetes and to assess associated endothelial cell functional impairment.

Graft survival of diabetic versus nondiabetic donor tissue after initial keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: To compare corneal graft survival using tissue from diabetic and nondiabetic donors in patients undergoing initial Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) or penetrating keratoplasty (PKP). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of pseudophakic eyes that underwent DSAEK or PKP was performed. The primary outcome measure was graft failure. Cox proportional hazard regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to compare diabetic versus nondiabetic donor tissue for all keratoplasty cases. RESULTS: A total of 183 eyes (136 DSAEK, 47 PKP) were included in the statistical analysis. Among 24 procedures performed using diabetic donor tissue, there were 4 cases (16.7%) of graft failure (3 DSAEK, 1 PKP), and among 159 procedures performed using nondiabetic donor tissue, there were 18 cases (11.3%) of graft failure (12 DSAEK, 6 PKP). Cox proportional hazard ratio of graft failure for all cases comparing diabetic with nondiabetic donor tissue was 1.69, but this difference was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval, 0.56-5.06; P = 0.348). There were no significant differences in Kaplan-Meier curves comparing diabetic with nondiabetic donor tissue for all cases (P = 0.380). Statistical analysis of graft failure by donor diabetes status within each procedure type was not possible because of the small number of graft failure events involving diabetic tissue. CONCLUSIONS: We found similar rates of graft failure in all keratoplasty cases when comparing tissue from diabetic and nondiabetic donors, but further investigation is needed to determine whether diabetic donor tissue results in different graft failure rates after DSAEK compared with PKP.

Regional assessment of energy-producing metabolic activity in the endothelium of donor corneas.

PURPOSE: We characterized mitochondrial respiration and glycolysis activity of human corneal endothelium, and compared metabolic activity between central and peripheral regions. METHODS: Endothelial keratoplasty-suitable corneas were obtained from donors aged 50 to 75 years. The endothelium-Descemet membrane complex (EDM) was isolated, and 3-mm punches were obtained from central and peripheral regions. Endothelium-Descemet membrane punches were assayed for mitochondrial respiration (oxygen consumption) and glycolysis (extracellular acidification) using an extracellular flux analyzer. Enzymatic (citrate synthase, glucose hexokinase) and mitochondrial density (MitoTracker) assays also were performed. RESULTS: Ten corneas were analyzed per assay. Metabolic activity for mitochondrial respiration and glycolysis showed expected changes to assay compounds (P < 0.01, all pairwise comparisons). Basal mitochondrial respiration and glycolysis activity did not differ between regions (P > 0.99). Similarly, central versus peripheral activity after assay compound treatment showed no significant differences (P > 0.99, all time points). The intracorneal coefficient of variation for basal readings between two and four peripheral punches was 18.5% of the mean. Although peripheral samples displayed greater enzymatic activity than central samples (P < 0.05), similar to extracellular flux results, mitochondrial density did not differ between regions (P = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Extracellular flux analysis of oxygen and pH is a valid technique for characterizing metabolic activity of human corneal endothelium. This technique demonstrates high reproducibility, allows quantification of metabolic parameters using small quantities of live cells, and permits estimation of overall metabolic output. Neither oxygen consumption nor extracellular acidification differed between central and peripheral regions of transplant suitable corneas in this series. Our results show that endothelial cell health can be quantified biochemically in transplant suitable corneas.