Clinical outcomes remain excellent up to 2 years after DMEK, in particular for eyes operated on for FECD and with completely attached grafts.

Spectralis OCT LTMH measurements were more reliable than the new Keratograph data. Agreement between the devices was poor.

DMEK is applicable for surgeons in various settings with good clinical outcomes. After an arbitrary learning curve (<25 cases), virtually all transplant-related complications declined with experience. Notably, surgeons with a higher annual caseload may pass faster through their learning curve than surgeons performing their first surgeries over an extended period.

Background: To analyze objective and subjective visual quality differences between descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and ultra-thin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) with a paired contralateral-eye design. Methods: A cross-sectional, comparative, and observational case series study between DMEK and UT-DSAEK were presented. Visual acuity, refractive status and corneal quality assessment were compared between both endothelial keratoplasty techniques. The sample consisted of 20 eyes (10 patients) diagnosed with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy. All measurements were performed preoperatively and at six months after surgery. Analyzed data included the measurement of objective scattering index, modulation transfer function, Strehl ratio, and optical quality assessment (OQAS) values. Contrast sensitivity, subjective patient satisfaction, visual acuity, tomography, pachymetry, endothelial cell count, and refraction status were also analyzed. Results: Objective and subjective visual quality variables had similar results among UT-DSAEK and DMEK procedures. Statistically significant differences favoring DMEK against UT-DSAEK were found in endothelial cell density (658.80 ± 139.33 and 1059.00 ± 421.84 cells/mm2, respectively), pachymetry (621.20 ± 33.74 and 529.70 ± 30.00 µm, respectively), and follow-up (45.50 ± 24.76 and 15.50 ± 8.43 months, respectively). Conclusions: UT-DSAEK and DMEK revealed no differences in terms of objective and subjective visual quality. However, DMEK showed a faster recovery during the follow-up, increased endothelial cell density, lower pachymetry, and a more anatomical posterior keratometry against UT-DSAEK in this case series paired-eye study.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas; Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Haigis, Hill-Radial Basis Function (RBF), Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Olsen Lenstar, Panacea, Pearl-DGS, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/theoretical (SRK/T). In addition, an analysis of the efficacy as a function of the axial length was performed. Methods: About 171 from 93 patients: 68 male eyes and 103 female eyes. Twelve IOL power formula calculations were studied with one IOL platform (trifocal hydrophilic IOL, FineVision Micro F), one biometer (Lenstar LS 900), one topographer (CSO Sirius Topographer), one surgeon, and one optometrist. Optimization were determined to be zeroed mean refractive prediction error. Mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and refractive accuracy within ±1.00 D was calculated. Axial length was split in short and medium eyes. Results: One hundred and seventy eyes were included. Formulas were ranked by percentage within ±0.50 diopters and MAE (D). Among all eyes, Olsen 86.55% (0.273 D) and Barrett Universal II 86.55% (0.285D). For short eyes (<22.5 mm), Olsen 90.70% (0.273 D) and Kane 90.70% (0.225 D). For medium eyes, Barrett 89.34% (0.237 D) and Pearl 86.89% (0.263 D). Conclusion: Olsen and Barrett formula obtained excellent accuracy for overall eyes. Kane and Olsen formula obtained the best results in short eyes. For medium axial length Barrett formula achieved the best accuracy results.