Evaluation of total keratometry and its accuracy for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of total keratometry (TK) and standard keratometry (K) from a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery. SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: The differences between the TK and K and their association with K were assessed. For IOL power calculation, combinations of 1) K with Haigis, Haigis-L, and Barrett True-K, and 2) TK with Haigis (Haigis-TK) were used. The mean absolute error (MAE) and the percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ± 0.50 diopters (D), ± 1.00 D, and ± 2.00 D were calculated. RESULTS: The study comprised 129 eyes. For Haigis, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Haigis-TK, respectively, the MAEs were 0.72 D, 0.61 D, 0.54 D, and 0.50 D in the myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) group, and 0.74 D, 0.68 D, 0.71 D, and 0.70 D in hyperopic LASIK/PRK group. For the radial keratotomy (RK) eyes, the MAEs were 0.66 D, 0.71 D, and 0.72 D for the Haigis, Barrett True-K, and Haigis-TK formulas, respectively. In the myopic LASIK/PRK group, the Barrett True-K and Haigis-TK produced significantly lower MAEs than did Haigis (P < .05). In the hyperopic LASIK/PRK and RK groups, there were no significant differences between the formulas in MAEs and percentages of eyes within the above prediction errors. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the combination of Haigis and TK in refractive prediction was comparable with Haigis-L and Barrett True-K in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.

A Multicenter Study Evaluating the Risk Factors and Outcomes of Repeat Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK), currently the most common procedure for managing corneal endothelial dysfunction, may be repeated following DSEK failure from a variety of causes. This multicenter study reports the risk factors and outcomes of repeat DSEK. METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved multicenter retrospective chart review of patients who underwent repeat DSEK. Twelve surgeons from 5 Midwest academic centers and 3 private practice groups participated. The Eversight Eye Bank provided clinical indication and donor graft data. We also assessed the role of the learning curve by comparing cohorts from the first and second 5-year periods. RESULTS: A total of 121 eyes from 121 patients who underwent repeat DSEK were identified. The average age of the patients was 70 ± 12 years. The most common indication for repeat DSEK was late endothelial graft failure without rejection (58%, N = 63). Average preoperative and 12-month postoperative repeat DSEK corrected distance visual acuities were 20/694 and 20/89, respectively. Visual acuity outcomes, endothelial cell density, and cell loss did not significantly vary between the 2 cohorts. Initial graft rebubble rates for the first and second cohorts were 51% and 25%. The presence of glaucoma, prior glaucoma surgery, or a history of penetrating (full thickness) keratoplasty did not significantly affect visual outcomes. The median, mean, and range of intraocular pressures before repeat DSEK were 15.0, 15.7, and 6 to 37 mm Hg, respectively. Patients with higher intraocular pressures before repeat DSEK had improved postoperative corrected distance visual acuities. CONCLUSIONS: Repeating DSEK improves vision following failed or decompensated DSEK surgery. Higher preoperative repeat DSEK IOPs were associated with improved visual outcomes, and initial graft rebubble rates, which decreased over time, were likely due to surgeon experience.