ABSTRACT
Purpose: To compare the visual outcomes in patients undergoing small?incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for correction of myopic astigmatism (??1.50 D) with or without manual cyclotorsion compensation. Methods: A prospective, double?blinded, randomized, contralateral study was conducted in the refractive services of a tertiary eye care center. Eligible patients with bilateral high myopic astigmatism (?1.5 D) and intraoperative cyclotorsion (?5°) undergoing SMILE between June 2018 and May 2019 were included. Cyclotorsion compensation was performed using triple centration method before femtosecond laser delivery. Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA and CDVA, respectively) measurement, manifest refraction, slit?lamp biomicroscopy, and corneal tomography were performed preoperatively and at 1 and 3 months’ postoperative visit. Astigmatic outcomes were analyzed using Alpins criteria. Results: A total of 30 patients (60 eyes) were included in this study. The patients underwent bilateral SMILE surgery, with manual cyclotorsion compensation in one eye (CC group, n = 30 eyes) and no cyclotorsion compensation in the other eye (NCC group, n = 30 eyes). Preoperative astigmatism and intraoperative cyclotorsion were ?2.0 D and 7.03° ± 1.06° (CC) and ?1.75 D and 7.24° ± 0.98° (NCC) (P = 0.472 and 0.240, respectively). No significant differences were noted in mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), UDVA, CDVA, and refractive error between the two groups at 3 months’ postoperative visit. Astigmatic outcomes measured using Alpins criteria demonstrated no significant difference between the two cohorts. Conclusion: The cyclotorsion compensation technique provided no additional advantage in terms of astigmatic outcomes or postoperative visual quality, in eyes with high preoperative astigmatism and intraoperative cyclotorsion.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To analyze the visual outcome and complications of Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) with their management in 256 eyes at a tertiary eye care center in southern India. Methods: This is a retrospective interventional study of 62 months duration conducted at a tertiary eye care center in southern India. Two hundred and fifty?six eyes of 205 patients were included in the study after obtaining written informed consent from the patients. All cases of DSEK were performed by a single experienced surgeon. In all cases, donor dissection was performed manually. A Sheet’s glide was inserted through the temporal corneal incision and donor button was placed on the Sheet’s glide with the endothelial side down. The lenticule was separated and inserted into the anterior chamber by pushing the lenticule into the anterior chamber using Sinskey’s hook. Any complication, either intraoperative or postoperative, was recorded and managed either medically or by appropriate surgical means. Results: The mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) before surgery was CF?1 m, which improved to 6/18 after surgery. Intraoperative donor graft perforation during dissection was seen in 12 cases, thin lenticule in three eyes, and repeated artificial Anterior Chamber (AC) collapse in three eyes. Dislocation of lenticule was the most common complication seen in 21 eyes, which was managed by graft repositioning and rebubbling. Eleven cases had minimal separation of the graft and seven cases had interface haze. Pupillary block glaucoma was seen in two cases that resolved with partial release of bubble. Surface infiltrate was seen in two cases, which was managed with topical antimicrobial agents. Primary graft failure was seen in two cases. Conclusion: DSEK is a promising alternative to penetrating keratoplasty for corneal endothelial decompensation, but it also has its own merits and limitations, and most often, merits overweigh limitations.