Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty for Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty: Influence of the Graft–Host Junction on the Graft Survival Rate

Determinants of Glaucoma Therapy Escalation After Descemet-Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty To Treat Pseudophakic Bullous Keratopathy: A Nested Case-Control Study

Purpose:

To study the determinants of glaucoma therapy escalation (GTE) after Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for pseudophakic bullous keratopathy in an eye-care hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Methods:

This nested case-control study evaluated patients who required medical or surgical treatment for controlling glaucoma after DSAEK (defined as GTE; GTE group). A group of patients who did not require any intervention post-DSAEK served as controls (control group). Data were collected on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters for DSAEK. Variables were compared between groups to evaluate risk factors for GTE and graft failure.

Results:

The study sample comprised 117 eyes (40 in the GTE group and 77 in the control group). Glaucoma was present in 20 (17.1%) of the eyes before DSAEK. The median duration of follow-up was 27 months [Interquartile range (IQR): 24; 42]. Intraoperative complications occurred in 4 eyes, and 2 eyes had a decentered donor button. Graft failure causing vision impairment and GTE at the final follow-up were noted in 19 (16.2%) and 40 (34.2%) eyes, respectively. Glaucoma prior to DSAEK was significantly associated with GTE [odds ratio (OR) = 6.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4; 18.3; P = 0.0004]. A history of penetrating keratoplasty (PK) was significantly associated with GTE after DSAEK [OR = 6.2 (95% CI 1.5; 24.7) P = 0.008]. At the last visit, GTE and graft failure were positively associated (OR = 27.2, P < 0.005).

Conclusion:

Escalation of glaucoma therapy was warranted in one in 3 eyes that had undergone DSAEK. GTE and graft failure are interrelated complications. Patients with glaucoma and PK have a higher risk of GTE post-DSAEK.

Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with intrascleral haptic-fixated intraocular lens in a sequential vs simultaneous approach

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) with intrascleral haptic-fixated intraocular lens (IOL) in a sequential and simultaneous approach.

SETTING

Tertiary eyecare center.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized comparative study.

METHODS

Patients with aphakic or complicated pseudophakic bullous keratopathy visiting a tertiary eyecare center were included in the study. A total of 40 patients were randomized into 2 groups of 20 each. Group 1 had subjects who underwent scleral-fixated IOL (SF IOL) implantation by intrascleral haptic fixation technique, followed by DSAEK (sequential procedure) with an interval of at least 3 months. Group 2 (simultaneous) had subjects who underwent DSAEK with SF IOL as a combined procedure. Graft survival, endothelial cell loss (ECL), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and need for any intervention such as rebubbling were evaluated for both the groups at the end of 6 months.

RESULTS

At 6 months, the sequential group had significantly better CDVA of 0.62 ± 0.17 logMAR compared with 0.87 ± 0.19 logMAR in the simultaneous group (P = .002). Group 1 had significantly better overall cumulative graft survival (100% vs 60%, P = .002), significantly lower ECL (P = .006), lesser mean central corneal thickness (P = .03), and significantly thinner donor lenticule (P = .009). Rebubbling rate was significantly higher in Group 2 (P = .025). The mean hyperopic shift was significantly more in Group 2 (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

The sequential procedure of SF IOL followed by DSAEK has better visual outcomes and graft survival when compared with simultaneous procedure in cases of aphakic or complicated pseudophakic bullous keratopathy.

DSAEK or DMEK for failed penetrating keratoplasty: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To review the published literature on indications and outcomes of DSAEK/DSEK and DMEK for the treatment of failed penetrating keratoplasty.

DESIGN

This is a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Prospective and retrospective studies reporting DSAEK/DSEK or DMEK after failed penetrating keratoplasty were included. Primary outcome measures are graft survival and detachment rates, as well as postoperative visual outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies with 970 patients/989 eyes were included, comprising 735 patients with 746 eyes which underwent DSAEK/DSEK surgery and 235 patients with 243 eyes which underwent DMEK surgery, all of them following a previously failed PK. There were no randomized controlled studies. In all of the DSAEK-PK studies, the graft failure rate was 18% (10%, 26%), the detachment rate was 15% (9%, 22%) and the rejection rate was 7% (3%, 12%) by the time of the last follow-up. And in all of the DMEK-PK studies, the graft failure rate was 14% (4%, 27%), the detachment rate was 42% (28%, 56%) and the rejection rate was 7% (2%, 16%). The mean visual acuity of the DSAEK-PK and DMEK-PK groups is 0.65 ± 0.18 and 0.43 ± 0.23 logMAR, respectively, at 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Endothelial keratoplasty for treatment of failed penetrating keratoplasty led to improved vision and graft clarity in most recipients. Though graft survival rates and rejection rates were comparable between the two groups, the DMEK-PK group showed better visual outcomes with higher detachment rate.