Delayed Expulsive Choroidal Hemorrhage After Penetrating Keratoplasty

A 65-year-old patient with history of keratoconus, mild cataract and penetrating keratoplasty over 30 years ago developed corneal oedema subsequent of graft failure with best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of counting fingers. He underwent a successful cataract surgery combined with a 7.25 mm Descemet’s Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK) with Sodium Hexafluoride (SF6) gas. His cornea remained oedematous inferiorly at 4 weeks, despite two subsequent re-bubbling due to persistent DMEK detachment inferiorly. This was managed by three radial full thickness 10-0 nylon sutures placed in the inferior cornea along with intracameral injection of air. Following this, his anterior segment ocular coherence tomography (OCT) confirmed complete attachment of the graft, and the sutures were removed 4 weeks later. Unaided visual acuity was 20/63 and BCVA was 20/32 after 8 months. DMEK suturing can be helpful in persistent DMEK detachments, which is refractory to repeated re-bubbling due to uneven posterior surface of previous PK.

Download Full-text

Survey of Rejection Prophylaxis Following Suture Removal in Penetrating Keratoplasty in Germany

Klinische Monatsblätter für Augenheilkunde ◽

10.1055/a-1353-6149 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sonja Heinzelmann ◽

Daniel Böhringer ◽

Philip Christian Maier ◽

Berthold Seitz ◽

Claus Cursiefen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Graft Rejection ◽

Graft Failure ◽

Penetrating Keratoplasty ◽

Treatment Strategies ◽

Cost Benefit ◽

Topical Steroids ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Systematic Analysis ◽

Open Questions ◽

The Face

Abstract Background Penetrating keratoplasty (PK) gets more and more reserved to cases of increasing complexity. In such cases, ocular comorbidities may limit graft survival following PK. A major cause for graft failure is endothelial graft rejection. Suture removal is a known risk factor for graft rejection. Nevertheless, there is no evidence-based regimen for rejection prophylaxis following suture removal. Therefore, a survey of rejection prophylaxis was conducted at 7 German keratoplasty centres. Objective The aim of the study was documentation of the variability of medicinal aftercare following suture removal in Germany. Methods Seven German keratoplasty centres with the highest numbers for PK were selected. The centres were sent a survey consisting of half-open questions. The centres performed a mean of 140 PK in 2018. The return rate was 100%. The findings were tabulated. Results All centres perform a double-running cross-stitch suture for standard PK, as well as a treatment for rejection prophylaxis with topical steroids after suture removal. There are differences in intensity (1 – 5 times daily) and tapering (2 – 20 weeks) of the topical steroids following suture removal. Two centres additionally use systemic steroids for a few days. Discussion Rejection prophylaxis following PK is currently poorly standardised and not evidence-based. All included centres perform medical aftercare following suture removal. It is assumed that different treatment strategies show different cost-benefit ratios. In the face of the diversity, a systematic analysis is required to develop an optimised regimen for all patients.

Download Full-text