LASIK Interface Complications: What Is the Appropriate Term for PISK?

Galvis, Virgilio; Tello, Alejandro; Revelo, Mario L.; Valarezo, Paul

doi:10.3928/1081597x-20130108-01

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, stages 1 and 2, according to the staging system proposed by Dawson et al, have been called PISK by other researchers,[2], [3] however, as mentioned, the disorder might not be related to IOP, therefore this name does not seem appropriate to describe it. Consequently, Galvis et al in 2012 proposed to call the condition “post-LASIK edema induced keratopathy (PLEK)”, which applies to the whole spectrum of the disorder (both PISK and IFS), and the staging system proposed by Dawson et al could be used to describe it in more detail [4], [5]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, Galvis et al in 2012 proposed to call the condition “post-LASIK edema induced keratopathy (PLEK)”, which applies to the whole spectrum of the disorder (both PISK and IFS), and the staging system proposed by Dawson et al could be used to describe it in more detail. [4] , [5] …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… [2] , [3] Based on the experimental study of Dawson et al, and since some cases of both IFS and PISK had been reported without the presence of high IOP in 2012 Galvis et al proposed the name Post LASIK edema-induced keratopathy (PLEK) to the condition, in order to exclude the words “pressure induced”, as evidently this is not the etiology in all cases. [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] Recently Luceri et al and Shajari et al reported the first two cases of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) performed to solve and IFS secondary to corneal edema in two patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy who developed corneal edema after phacoemulsification without an increase in IOP. [16] , [17] …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interface Fluid Syndrome (IFS) following Toxic Anterior Segment Syndrome (TASS): not related to high intraocular pressure but to endothelial failure

Galvis

Berrospi

Tello

et al. 2019

Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe the case of a 52-year-old female with past history of LASIK, 21 years earlier, without Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy, who underwent phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. During the early postoperative period severe corneal edema, anterior chamber cellularity and iris inflammation presented, accompanied by a clear space along the LASIK interface. Those findings were interpreted as part of a Toxic Anterior Segment Syndrome (TASS) and secondary interface fluid syndrome (IFS). When interface fluid was present, intraocular pressure (IOP) measured in the center of the cornea yielded very low values. In addition, applanation tonometry performed in the corneal periphery, as well as Schiotz tonometry and digital tonometry also indicated that the IOP was not high. Fluid in the interface persisted until a DMEK was carried out 11 months after the phacoemulsification surgery. Five days postoperatively the IFS resolved, confirmed by OCT imaging. The origin of IFS in this case was corneal edema secondary to endothelial cell dysfunction and it was not related to high IOP. This is the first reported case of IFS following TASS, the third case published of DMEK procedure used to solve endothelial failure-related IFS, and the case with the longest time of presentation after LASIK.

show abstract