Purpose: To report the outcome of wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy (WG-PRK) in the treatment of high astigmatism following keratoplasty. Methods: A retrospective, interventional analysis including patients with high astigmatism following either penetrating keratoplasty or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, who underwent WG-PRK. Results: Thirteen eyes (7 right eyes) of 12 patients (10 male) aged 35.1 ± 5.9 years were included. Preoperative astigmatism ranged between 3.00 and 5.00 D. Average follow-up time was 14.0 ± 6.2 months. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) improved from 0.97 ± 0.58 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (Snellen equivalent ∼20/187) preoperatively to 0.13 ± 0.15 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ∼20/27) at 6 months and 0.14 ± 0.16 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ∼20/28) at the final follow-up (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). UDVA ≥20/40 increased from 1 eye (7.7%) preoperatively to 13 eyes (100%) at 6 months and 12 eyes (92.3%) at the final follow-up (P < 0.001 for both). UDVA ≥20/25 increased from 1 eye (7.7%) preoperatively to 6 eyes (46.2%) at 6 months and at the final follow-up (P = 0.027 for both). Mean astigmatism improved from −3.98 ± 0.75 D to −1.27 ± 0.82 D and −1.40 ± 1.04 at 6 months and at the last follow-up, respectively (P = 0.001 for both). Preoperative astigmatism was ≥3.00 D in all eyes and was reduced to ≤2.50 D in all eyes at 6 months postoperatively, with 7 eyes (63.6%) having ≤1.00 D of astigmatism at both 6 months and the final follow-up. Conclusions: WG-PRK was safe and effective in the treatment of high and regular postkeratoplasty astigmatism.

Purpose: To evaluate 3-year outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (F-DMEK) compared with manual Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (M-DMEK) in patients with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD). Methods: A retrospective, interventional study, including eyes with FECD and cataract that underwent either F-DMEK or M-DMEK combined with cataract extraction at either the Toronto Western Hospital or Kensington Eye Institute, and that had at least 18 months' follow-up was conducted. Exclusion criteria: complicated anterior segments, previous vitrectomy, previous keratoplasty, corneal opacity, or any other visually significant ocular comorbidity. Results: Included were 16 eyes of 15 patients in the F-DMEK group (average follow-up 33.0 ± 9.0 months) and 45 eyes of 40 patients in the M-DMEK group (average follow-up 32.0 ± 7.0 months). There were no issues with the creation of femtosecond descemetorhexis (in the F-DMEK group)—all descemetorhexis cuts were complete. Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity improvement did not differ significantly between the groups at 1, 2, and 3 years (P = 0.849, P = 0.465 and P = 0.936, respectively). Rates of significant detachment in F-DMEK and M-DMEK were 1 of 16 eyes (6.25%) and 16 of 45 eyes (35.6%) (P = 0.027). Rebubbling rates were 1 of 16 eyes (6.25%) and 15 of 45 eyes (33.3%) (P = 0.047). Cell-loss rates following F-DMEK and M-DMEK were 26.8% and 36.5% at 1 year (P = 0.042), 30.5% and 42.3% at 2 years (P = 0.008), 37% and 47.5% at 3 years (P = 0.057), respectively. Graft failure rate was 0% in F-DMEK and 8.9% in M-DMEK (all were primary failures; P = 0.565). Conclusions: F-DMEK showed good efficacy with reduced detachment, rebubble, and cell-loss rates, compared with M-DMEK.

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for the treatment of failed penetrating keratoplasty (PKP). Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of patients with failed PKP who underwent DMEK or DSAEK. The median follow-up time for both groups was 28 months (range 6–116 months). Data collection included demographic characteristics, number of previous corneal transplants, previous glaucoma surgeries, best-corrected visual acuity, endothelial cell density, graft detachment and rebubble rate, rejection episodes, and graft failure. Results: Twenty-eight eyes in the DMEK group and 24 eyes in the DSAEK group were included in the analysis. Forty-three percent of eyes in the DMEK group and 50% of eyes in the DSAEK group had to be regrafted because of failure (P = 0.80). The most common reason for failure was persistent graft detachment (58%) in the DMEK group and secondary failure (58%) in the DSAEK group; hence, the time between endothelial keratoplasty and graft failure differed significantly between the groups (P = 0.02). Six eyes (21%) in the DMEK group and 7 eyes (29%) in the DSAEK group developed graft rejection (P = 0.39). Rejection was the cause of failure in 67% and 71% in the DMEK and DSAEK groups, respectively. The best-corrected visual acuity 6 months after surgery was better in the DMEK group compared with the DSAEK group (P = 0.051). Conclusions: Both DSAEK and DMEK have a role in treating PKP failure. Primary failure due to persistent graft detachment was significantly higher in the DMEK group, although the overall failure rate in the medium term was similar.

DMEK is a viable option for cases of failed PKP. DMEK failure after PKP might be associated with lower visual acuity before DMEK surgery, higher number of rebubble interventions, and manual descemetorhexis rather than femtosecond laser-enabled DMEK.

Objective: To present outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in eyes with prior trabeculectomy or a glaucoma drainage device (GDD). Methods: A retrospective case series, including patients that had previously undergone trabeculectomy and/or GDD implantation, who later underwent DMEK between 2013 and 2016 at Toronto Western Hospital and the Kensington Eye Institute. Outcome measures: best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), endothelial cell (EC) density, intraoperative and postoperative complications. Results: Twenty-seven eyes of 27 patients were included. All DMEK procedures were uneventful. Mean follow-up time was 14.6 ± 6.1 months. In eyes with no visually limiting comorbidities ( n = 16), BSCVA improved from 1.34 ± 0.65 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/440) preoperatively to 0.51 ± 0.24 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/65) and 0.50 ± 0.33 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/65) at 6 and 12 months, respectively ( p < 0.001 for both). In eyes with visually limiting comorbidities ( n = 11), BSCVA improved from 1.92 ± 0.72 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/1665) preoperatively to 1.43 ± 0.83 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/540) and 1.37 ± 0.99 logMAR (Snellen equivalent ~20/470) at 6 and 12 months, respectively ( p = 0.008 and p = 0.037). Graft detachment rate was 24.1% and rebubble rate was 17.2%. Primary and secondary graft failure rates were 3.7% and 10.3%, respectively. Rejection rate was 17.2%. EC-loss rate at 6 months and 12 months was 36.7% and 50.5%, respectively. Conclusions: DMEK performed in eyes with previous trabeculectomy or a GDD is more challenging than conventional DMEK, but has good outcomes. Higher rates of graft rejection and secondary graft failure in this setting should be further evaluated in long-term studies.