Purpose: The aim is to report long-term graft survival rates, clinical outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).Methods: In this study 150 eyes, that underwent DMEK whether for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) or for bullous keratopathy (BK), surveilled for 7 years at 6 time-points to evaluate graft survival rates and clinical outcomes of post-corneal transplantation.Results: Overall, the estimated survival probability of 95% con dence interval at 7 years of post-DMEK was 0.58 (0.72-0.77) and the survival probabilities of eyes operated for FECD (0.53) were higher than eyes operated for BK (0.42) (Log Rank 26.87, [p=0.197]). Post-transplant eyes with FECD achieved better visual acuity levels than eyes with BK (p=0.006). Primary graft failure occurred in 11.3% eyes. Secondary graft failure rate was 9.3%, and allograft rejection rate was 4.7%.Conclusion: Although DMEK is effective, safe in long-term, visual results and graft survival rates are better in cases with FECD.

Purpose To report clinical results of a foldable, hydrophilic acrylic, single-piece, injectable, posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens (pIOL). Material and Methods Medical records of patients who underwent posterior chamber phakic IOL (Eyecryl Phakic IOL, Biotech Vision Care, Ahmedabad, India) implantation for surgical correction of myopia were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients with at least a one-year follow-up were included. Manifest refraction, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), and pIOL vault were analyzed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Complications observed during and after surgery were also recorded. Results The study included 58 eyes of 29 patients. Mean patient age was 32 ± 7 years. Spherical equivalent of manifest refraction was −13.41 ± 3.23 D preoperatively and −0.44 ± 0.55 D postoperatively. Preoperative CDVA was 0.29 ± 0.71 logMAR. Postoperative UDVA and CDVA were 0.21 ± 0.66 and 0.15 ± 0.69 logMAR, respectively, at the 12-month visit. At the 12-month visit, the efficacy index was 1.20 and the safety index was 1.39. Mean ECD was 2713 ± 339 cells/mm2 at the preoperative visit and 2608 ± 362 cells/mm2 at the 12-month visit (3.9% loss, p < 0.001). ECD loss from 3 months to 12 months was not statistically significant. No significant cataract formation, significant endothelial cell loss, glaucoma, uveitis, or any other vision-threatening complication was observed. Conclusion Based on postoperative experience, we have found that Eyecryl Phakic IOL is safe and effective for treating high myopia.

Purpose: To compare the long-term refractive and visual outcomes and the corneal higher-order aberrations of contralateral eyes of patients who received small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in one eye and femtosecond laser–assisted laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) in the other eye. Setting: Refractive Surgery Clinic of the University of Health Sciences Beyoğlu Eye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. Design: Retrospective case series. Methods: The medical files of patients who received SMILE in one eye and FS-LASIK in the contralateral eye for myopia and myopic astigmatism were reviewed. Postoperative examinations at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years were evaluated. The main outcome measures were the comparison of the refractive and visual outcomes and the effect on corneal higher-order aberrations between the procedures. Results: This study included 44 eyes from 22 patients. At the 5-year follow-up, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity improved to 0.03 ± 0.06 and 0.02 ± 0.05 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (range 0.15 to −0.08 and 0.10 to −0.08) for SMILE and FS-LASIK groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = .572). At 5 years, all eyes in both groups were within ±1.00 diopter of attempted spherical equivalent refraction, and no statistically significant difference was found between the intended and achieved correction comparing the groups at any time points. None of the aberrations showed a difference between the groups at any time. Conclusions: Both SMILE and FS-LASIK were safe and similar in terms of efficacy and predictability at long-term follow-up for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism.