Search

Objectives: To compare the outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) and Penetrating Keratoplasty (PK) in patients with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK). Methods: Records of 51 eyes of 51 PBK patients (32 male, 19 female) who underwent PK (Group1=38 eyes) and DMEK (Group 2=13 eyes) were reviewed retrospectively. The two groups were compared for Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), graft survival rates, and complications. Results: The mean age was 69.1 and 67.1 years in group 1 and group 2, respectively. First-year cumulative survival rates for group 1 and group 2 were 92.1% and 61.5%, respectively, and 89.1% and 51.3% in the second year (P=0.001 by log-rank test). At the last follow-up visit, 2.7% of Group 1 and 30.8% of Group 2 had a BCVA of 0.3 or better (P=0.004). Graft failure was observed in 12 eyes (31.6%) in group 1 and 8 eyes (61.5%) in group 2 (P=0.056). At the last examination, the rates of transparent grafts were 73.7% and 69.2% in group 1 and group 2, respectively (P=0.756). Postoperative glaucoma was observed in 4 eyes (30.8%) in the group 2 and 4 eyes (10.5%) in the group 1 (P=0.083). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding other complications (P>0.05). Conclusions: DMEK surgery offers a better visual outcome than PK for the treatment of PBK. Careful follow-up of patients is required in terms of glaucoma and graft failure after DMEK. Although the graft survival rate was lower in the DMEK group, a similar rate of graft transparency was achieved at the final examination with repeated DMEK surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare our combined surgery (CS) and sequential surgery (SS) results. Materials and Methods: The files of 44 patients who underwent CS (penetrating keratoplasty [PK], cataract extraction, and intraocular lens [IOL] implantation) and 126 patients who underwent SS (cataract extraction and IOL implantation in a second session after PK) between January 2009 and December 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. One eye of the patients who were followed up for at least 1 year was included in the study. The two groups were compared in terms of indications, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refractive results, complications, and graft survival. Results: In the CS and SS groups, the median age was 63 (30-79) and 43 (18-73) years (p<0.001) and the median follow-up time was 51 (13-152) and 64.5 (13-154) months (p=0.011), respectively. The most common PK indications were traumatic corneal scar (20.5%) and endothelial dystrophy (15.9%) in the CS group versus keratoconus (24.6%) and stroma dystrophy (17.5%) in the SS group. In the CS and SS groups, 50% vs 69% of patients had CDVA ≥0.4 (p=0.04); 45.5% vs 25.4% had CDVA (0.1-0.3) (p=0.04); and 54.5% vs 73% had spherical equivalent ≤±2.0 D (p=0.02). The most common postoperative complications were glaucoma (20.5% vs 15.9%, p=0.48) and allograft reaction (9.1% vs 23%, p=0.04). Graft survival rates were 95.2% vs 86.5% (p=0.10) at 1 year and 75.9% vs 68.9% (p=0.47) at 5 years, respectively. Conclusion: Over long-term follow-up, the groups were similar in terms of graft survival. For this reason, each patient must be evaluated separately whether to perform a combined or sequential surgery. Given the lower refractive error and higher expectation of final visual acuity, SS can be more advantageous especially in young patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Trauma & Emergency Surgery / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi is the property of KARE Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology / Turk Oftalmoloji Dergisi is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology / Turk Oftalmoloji Dergisi is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology / Turk Oftalmoloji Dergisi is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology / Turk Oftalmoloji Dergisi is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology / Turk Oftalmoloji Dergisi is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology / Turk Oftalmoloji Dergisi is the property of Galenos Yayinevi Tic. LTD. STI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)