Factors influencing visual outcome after penetrating keratoplasty combined with intraocular lens implantation.

PURPOSE: To establish which factors influence visual outcome after penetrating keratoplasty combined with intraocular lens implantation. METHODS: This retrospective noncomparative clinical interventional case series study included 135 consecutive patients (mean age 70.2 +/- 13.6 years) who underwent central penetrating allogenic keratoplasty combined with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, all operated by the same surgeon. There were 79 triple procedures, 33 keratoplasties combined t with an exchange of OL, and 23 penetrating keratoplasties combined with a secondary implantation of posterior chamber lens. Mean follow-up was 28.3 +/- 18.7 months (range 3.3-112 months). Reasons for keratoplasty were herpetic or traumatic corneal scars or defects (46), Fuchs corneal endothelial dystrophy (22), pseudophakic or aphakic bullous keratopathy (49), corneal endothelial decompensation due to other reasons (15), and keratoconus (3). Main outcome measures were postoperative visual acuity and agin in visual acuitvy RESULTS: Mean postoperative visual acuity and mean gain in visual acuity were 0.33 +/- 0.21 (median 0.30) and 0.25 +/- 0.20 (median 0.20), respectively. Compared with the preoperative measurements, mean visual acuity increased in 129 patients (129 /135, 95.6%). Factors influencing postoperative visual outcome and gain in visual acuity were preoperative visual acuity (p < 0.005), reason for keratoplasty (p < 0.005), and diameter of the graft (p = 0.046). ostoperative visual outcome was independent of age, sex, right or left eye, presence of diabetes mellitus, preoperative refractive error, length of follow-up, duration of surgery, and preoperative intraocular pressure. CONCLUSIONS: The most important factors influencing visual outcome after central penetrating allogenic keratoplasty combined with IOL surgery are preoperative visual acuity, graft size, and reason for keratoplasty. Other factors such as age, sex, diabetes mellitus, and preoperative refractive error do not substantially influence postoperative visual outcome.

Retinal redetachment after removal of intraocular silicone oil tamponade.

AIM: To evaluate frequency and risk factors of retinal redetachment after removal of intraocular silicone oil tamponade. METHODS: The study included 225 patients who consecutively underwent intraocular silicone oil removal at a mean interval of 10 months after pars plana vitrectomy had been performed by one of two surgeons. Mean follow up time was 17.37 (SD 14.40) months (range 3.02-67.42 months). RESULTS: In 57 of 225 (25.3%) patients, the retina detached after removal of silicone oil. Risk factors for retinal redetachment were the following: number of previously unsuccessful retinal detachment surgeries (p=0.0008); surgeon (p=0.007); visual acuity before silicone oil removal (p=0.009); incomplete removal of vitreous base (p=0.01); absence of an encircling band in eyes with proliferate vitreoretinopathy in which an inferior retinotomy had not been performed (p=0.01); and indication for pars plana vitrectomy. Rate of retinal redetachment was statistically (p>0.05) independent of the technique of silicone oil removal and duration of silicone oil endotamponade. CONCLUSION: Retinal redetachment after removal of silicone oil endotamponade can occur in approximately a fourth of patients, depending on the criteria to use and to remove silicone oil. Risk factors for recurrent detachment included the following: number of previously unsuccessful retinal detachment surgeries, surgeon, preoperative visual acuity, incomplete removal of the vitreous base, absence of an encircling band, and reason for pars plana vitrectomy. The rate of retinal redetachment is independent of the technique of silicone oil removal and duration of silicone oil endotamponade, with a minimal duration of silicone oil tamponade of about 3 months in the present study.

Tectonic sclerokeratoplasty and tectonic penetrating keratoplasty as treatment for perforated or predescemetal corneal ulcers.

PURPOSE: To report the clinical outcome of patients with perforated or predescemetal corneal ulcers treated by tectonic, centric or eccentric penetrating keratoplasty or by tectonic sclerokeratoplasty. DESIGN: Nonrandomized clinical trial. METHODS: The study included 60 patients (60 eyes) with perforated or predescemetal corneal ulcers who were consecutively operated on by the same surgeon. Fifty-two patients underwent tectonic penetrating centric or eccentric keratoplasty. Eight patients with paralimbal corneal ulcers underwent tectonic sclerokeratoplasty. A control group consisted of 76 patients (76 eyes) electively undergoing central penetrating keratoplasty for treatment of inactive central corneal scars. RESULTS: In the study group with perforated or predescemetal corneal ulcers, best-corrected postoperative visual acuity ranged from perception of light to 0.80 (median, 0.10), with 54 of 60 eyes (90%) attaining an improvement of best visual acuity. In 10 of 60 patients (16.7%), tectonic penetrating keratoplasty had to be re-performed because of a recurring corneal ulcer. Patients with sclerokeratoplasty and patients with eccentric keratoplasty did not differ in clinical outcome, despite larger trephine and corneal lesion size in the sclerokeratoplasty group. Among study patients compared with control patients, postoperative visual acuity was significantly lower (P =.01), postoperative refractive and keratometric astigmatism were significantly higher (P <.05), and immunologic graft reactions (P =.02) and suture loosening (P <.001) occurred significantly more often. CONCLUSIONS: Eyes with perforated corneal ulcers or predescemetal corneal ulcers can usually be saved by tectonic keratoplasty or sclerokeratoplasty, with a moderate to considerable amount of remaining useful vision. In case of doubt, one may prefer conservative treatment of corneal ulcers and to electively perform central keratoplasty when the ulcers have healed. For selected clinical situations, sclerokeratoplasty is an alternative to keratoplasty for surgical treatment of paralimbal corneal defects.

Autologous ipsilateral rotating penetrating keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: To evaluate visual outcome after autologous ipsilateral rotating penetrating keratoplasty. METHODS: The study included nine patients who consecutively underwent autologous ipsilateral rotating penetrating keratoplasty for treatment of traumatic central corneal avascular scars. These patients were compared with 105 patients who consecutively underwent homologous central penetrating keratoplasty in the same study period for treatment of avascular corneal scars extending to the corneal periphery. All operations were performed by the same surgeon. Mean follow-up time for both study groups was 31.27 +/- 21.54 and 32.0 +/- 19.4 months, respectively. RESULTS: In the autologous rotating keratoplasty group, visual acuity increased significantly (P = 0.03; Wilcoxon test) from 0.13 +/- 0.11 preoperatively to 0.29 +/- 0.16 postoperatively. Refractive astigmatism and keratometric astigmatism, respectively, increased (P = 0.02) from 3.19 +/- 2.53 diopters and 3.20 +/- 2.24 diopters, respectively, preoperatively to 6.9 +/- 1.82 diopters and 9.55 +/- 4.32 diopters, respectively, postoperatively. Comparing the study groups, postoperative visual acuity was significantly lower (P = 0.01), and keratometric astigmatism (P = 0.003) and refractive astigmatism (P = 0.01) were significantly higher in the autologous rotating keratoplasty group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Autologous ipsilateral rotating penetrating keratoplasty compared with homologous central penetrating keratoplasty is associated with a high postoperative refractive and keratometric astigmatism leading to a relatively low postoperative visual acuity. It suggests that, in normal clinical conditions when donor material is available and postoperative follow-up examinations can be performed, homologous central penetrating keratoplasty may be superior to autologous ipsilateral rotating keratoplasty.

Intraocular pressure and silicone oil endotamponade.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intraocular pressure after instillation and eventual removal of silicone oil in patients undergoing pars plana vitrectomy combined with silicone oil endotamponade. METHODS: The study included 198 patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy with silicone oil endotamponade (5,000 centistoke viscosity), in whom silicone oil was removed and in whom follow-up after oil removal was at least 3 months. All patients were operated on by one of two surgeons. RESULTS: After silicone oil instillation, intraocular pressure increased significantly (P < 0.001) from 12.9 +/- 4.4 mm Hg preoperatively to 16.1 +/- 5.5 mm Hg postoperatively. Intraocular pressure was statistically (P > 0.20) independent of the duration of silicone oil tamponade. Twenty percent of the 198 patients had at least one postoperative intraocular pressure measurement that was higher than 21 mm Hg. Main reasons for increased intraocular pressure were closed inferior iridectomy, iris neovascularisation, silicomacrophagocytic open-angle glaucoma secondary to silicone oil emulsification, and preoperative history of glaucoma. Glaucomatous optic nerve damage was detected in 14 (14 of 198, 7.1%) eyes, including 8 eyes with preoperative antiglaucoma treatment. Silicone oil emulsification occurring in 40 (40 of 198, 20.2%) patients did not statistically influence intraocular pressure after oil removal. Ocular hypotony occurred in 10 (10 of 198, 5.1%) patients after oil release leading to intraocular hemorrhages and loss of vision in 3 patients. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant increased intraocular pressure after pars plana vitrectomy with silicone oil endotamponade occurs relatively rarely, can usually be well controlled by topical antiglaucoma medication, and is reversible in most patients after oil removal. In patients with increased intraocular pressure and silicone oil endotamponade, oil removal may be preferred to invasive antiglaucoma surgery to reduce intraocular pressure.

Intraocular pressure after homologous penetrating keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intraocular pressure (IOP) changes after homologous central penetrating keratoplasty in a noncomparative interventional case series. METHODS: The study included 245 patients undergoing homologous central penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus (n = 77), herpetic corneal scars (n = 29), nonherpetic corneal scars (n = 46), Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (n = 24), and secondary corneal endothelial decompensation caused by preceding intraocular operations (n = 69). Mean follow-up time was 30.4 +/- 18.7 months (range, 12.1-111.6 months). The same surgeon operated on all patients, and a peripheral iridotomy was routinely performed. RESULTS: On the first postoperative day, IOP was significantly (P = 0.02) higher than that before keratoplasty. Taking the whole study group and taking the study groups separately, IOP measurements determined on the third postoperative day (P = 0.57), 1 week after surgery (P = 0.55), or later (P > 0.50) were not significantly different from the preoperative values. Eyes undergoing keratoplasty with cataract surgery and eyes undergoing keratoplasty without additional intraocular procedures did not vary significantly (P > 0.10) in IOP measurements. IOP did not differ significantly (P > 0.50) between eyes with an immunologic graft reaction (n = 29) and eyes without a reaction (n = 216). Acute angle-closure glaucoma was not detected in any of the patients. IOP measurements were statistically independent of suture type (P > 0.10), age (P > 0.05), preoperative and postoperative refractive error (P > 0.05), preoperative and postoperative corneal astigmatism (P > 0.10), preoperative and postoperative visual acuity (P > 0.10), diameter of graft and trephine (P > 0.15), and oversize of the graft (P > 0.50). Postoperative IOP measurements were significantly (P < 0.01) correlated with preoperative IOP values. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with a peripheral iridotomy performed during surgery, homologous central penetrating keratoplasty usually does not markedly change IOP. The main risk factor for postoperatively increased IOP is increased IOP before surgery.