ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To describe a novel technique in which a contact lens was used to facilitate Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in an eye with an anterior chamber intraocular lens (ACIOL). METHODS: A 71-year-old man with a long-standing ACIOL developed bullous keratopathy. As the patient was at high risk of complications due to multiple ocular comorbidities, DMEK was performed with the ACIOL left in the anterior chamber. An inserted cosmetic contact lens was used as a platform for the graft unfolding. RESULTS: Partial graft detachment on the third postoperative day required rebubbling. This successfully cleared up the cornea after a few weeks. At the one-month follow-up, the uncorrected distance visual acuity improved to 20/50, with an endothelial cell loss of 35.2%. Steroid-induced ocular hypertension necessitated a trabeculectomy by the fifth postoperative month. At the sixth follow-up month, endothelial cell loss was 64%. CONCLUSIONS: Contact lens-assisted DMEK is a safe procedure for eyes with an ACIOL. However, good foresight is needed regarding whether the ACIOL should be kept or exchanged.
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study aimed to determine the knowledge, attitude, and practices of non-ophthalmic physicians-in-training regarding recognition and prevention of exposure keratopathy among patients admitted in a tertiary referral hospital. Methods: This study was a single-center cross-sectional study. An anonymous self-administered online questionnaire was distributed among non-ophthalmic physicians-in-training at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) using convenience and snowball sampling. Results: A total of 77 responses were recorded with a response rate of 37%. The majority of the respondents uniformly reported the absence of an established eye care protocol or policy being implemented for different subsets of patients at risk for developing exposure keratopathy. Ninety-six percent (96%) was aware of exposure keratopathy. The most urgent reason for referral to the ophthalmology service was the presence of whitish of opacity at 46.8%, while the least urgent reason was the presence of eye redness at 36.4%. Only 43% of the patients with incomplete eyelid closure was referred to the ophthalmology service. The most frequently used modality of prophylactic eye protection treatment was eyelid taping (84.4%) followed by lubricants (drops and gels, 79.1%). The most common reason for not referring was the absence of an established protocol on the appropriate indication for referral to the ophthalmology service. Conclusion: This study showed that the majority of non-ophthalmic physicians-in-training had adequate knowledge and favorable attitude regarding recognition and prevention of exposure keratopathy among patient admitted at the PGH; however, the absence or the unavailability of an eye care protocol among patients with inadequate eyelid closure in our institution on the prevention of exposure keratopathy and its early treatment and appropriate indications for ophthalmology referral resulted in non-uniformity and varied practice patterns on its management.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the vector analysis, visual, and refractive outcomes after myopic astigmatic correction using SMILE between the right and left eyes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study including 41 right and 40 left eyes that underwent SMILE for correction of myopic astigmatism greater than 0.75 diopters (D) with a follow-up of at least 3 months. Vector analysis for astigmatic correction was done. Visual and refractive parameters were compared between both groups by measuring mean postoperative logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity, mean postoperative spherical equivalent (SE), cylinder, and refractive predictability in terms of SE and cylindrical correction. Efficacy and safety of SMILE were also determined. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between vector outcomes except for angle of error (AE). The right eye group yielded a negative mean AE (- 2.71 ± 5.35), while the left eye group yielded a positive mean AE (0.23 ± 9.60). Correction index, magnitude of error and refractive predictability of cylindrical correction showed undercorrection of astigmatism in both groups. The right eye group showed lower predictability for higher cylindrical correction. Visual outcomes were similar for both eyes. CONCLUSION: Rotational errors account for vectorial outcome differences between right and left eyes. Despite achieving good visual and refractive outcomes with low cylinder correction, the tendency to undercorrect between eyes due to this error may be more evident when treating higher amounts of astigmatism. More careful preoperative control for cyclotorsion is warranted for right eyes compared to left eyes.
