Purpose: This study aimed to compare four depths of manual dissection for the preparation of Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty lamellae.
Methods: Eye bank corneas were randomized into four groups according to dissection depths: Pachy-100 (incision depth = central corneal thickness-safety margin of 100 µm), Pachy-50 (safety margin of 50 µm), Pachy-0 (no safety margin), and Pachy+50 (incision depth = central corneal thickness + 50 µm). All endothelial lamellae were prepared using a standardized method of manual dissection (Pachy-DSEK).
Purpose: To evaluate refractive and topographic results of the association of intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) with photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for the correction of high (>6.0 diopters [D]) postkeratoplasty astigmatism (PKA).
Setting: University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Purpose: To report two cases of coexisting keratoconus and Fuchs endothelial dystrophy treated with intrastromal corneal ring segments (ICRS) implantation and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).
Methods: Two patients with coexisting keratoconus and Fuchs endothelial dystrophy underwent ICRS implantation and DMEK, in a two-stage procedure. Follow-up evaluation included Scheimpflug tomography and optical coherence tomography.
Purpose: To present an alternative technique (Pachy-DSEK) for the manual preparation of thin endothelial lamellae in Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK), as well as to evaluate its visual and anatomic outcomes.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted in 15 cases who underwent DSEK at a private eye clinic in Brazil (INOB, Brasília) from June 2017 to December 2019. All patients had ocular comorbidities and relative contraindications to Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).
Purpose: Epidemiological analysis of limbal transplantation surgeries performed in the Ophthalmologic Hospital of Sorocaba.
Methods: Retrospective medical records review of 30 patients who underwent limbal stem cell transplants between January 2003 and March 2008. Cases involving conjunctival limbal autograft were classified as group I, and those involving conjunctival limbal allograft as group II.