The association of ICRS and PRK for treating high astigmatism after keratoplasty improved visual acuity, spherical equivalent, and topographic and refractive astigmatism after 12 months of follow-up.

Purpose: To present an alternative technique (Pachy-DSEK) for the manual preparation of thin endothelial lamellae in Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK), as well as to evaluate its visual and anatomic outcomes. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted in 15 cases who underwent DSEK at a private eye clinic in Brazil (INOB, Brasília) from June 2017 to December 2019. All patients had ocular comorbidities and relative contraindications to Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). All endothelial lamellae were manually prepared by using a standardized technique. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), tomographic parameters and graft’s thickness were evaluated preoperatively and at 6 months. Endothelial cell counts were evaluated preoperatively and at 12 to 24 months. Results: During preparation there was one case (6%) of peripheral tear and no tissue was lost. At 6 months, the median BCVA improved from 1.60 to 0.40 logMAR ( p = 0.0009). There was no significant change in anterior ( p = 0.507) and posterior astigmatism ( p = 0.483), anterior ( p = 0.683) and posterior mean keratometry ( p = 0.767), and total corneal power ( p = 0.952). The median central graft thickness at 6 months was 80 µm. Ultrathin grafts (<130 µm) were achieved in 80% of cases. At 12 to 24 months endothelial cell count decreased significantly. Graft’s detachment occurred in two cases (13%) and endothelial rejection in one case (6%). Conclusion: By using ultrasonic pachymetry intra-operatively and standardizing graft preparation, most manually dissected endothelial lamellae were ultrathin. Pachy-DSEK was safe and effective for treating endothelial disfunction in eyes with ocular comorbidities. It may be a cost-effective alternative to automated dissection methods.

To evaluate the clinical course and management of infectious interface keratitis after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Methods: A total of 352 cases that had undergone Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with infectious interface keratitis during follow-up were analyzed. The microbiological analyses, time to infection onset, clinical findings, follow-up duration, treatment, and post-treatment corrected distance visual acuity were recorded. Results: IIK was detected in eight eyes of eight cases. Three fungal and three bacterial pathogens were identified in all cases. All patients received medical treatment according to culture sensitivity. Antifungal treatment was initiated in two cases with no growth on culture, with a preliminary diagnosis of fungal interface keratitis. Intrastromal antifungal injections were performed in all patients with fungal infections. The median time to infection onset was 164 days (range: 2-282 days). The postoperative infectious interface keratitis developed in the early period in two cases. The mean follow-up duration was 13.4 ± 6.2 months (range: 6-26 months). Re-Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty was performed in two patients (25%) and therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty in four patients (50%) who did not recover with medical treatment. The final corrected distance visual acuity was 20/40 or better in five patients (62.5%). Conclusions: The diagnosis and treatment of infectious interface keratitis following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty are challenging. Early surgical intervention should be preferred in the absence of response to medical treatment. Better graft survival and visual acuity can be achieved with therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty and re-Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in patients with infectious interface keratitis.