Perforierende Keratoplastik vs. „Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty“ im Partnerauge
PURPOSE To compare the visual outcomes and postoperative complications in patients undergoing penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in 1 eye followed by Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in their fellow eye. METHODS A retrospective analysis of 11 patients, who underwent a PKP procedure first in 1 eye and then a DMEK surgery in their fellow eye, was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Visual and refractive outcomes were also evaluated, including higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and contrast thresholds. A subjective questionnaire was used to evaluate patient satisfaction. RESULTS Both uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuities were significantly better in the case of DMEK when compared with that in the case of PKP (0.82 vs. 0.37 logMAR, P = 0.005; 0.61 vs. 0.21 logMAR, P = 0.011, respectively). Postkeratoplasty astigmatism, mean spherical equivalent, and HOAs were also significantly lower in eyes after undergoing DMEK than after undergoing PKP (3.90 vs. 0.89 diopters, P = 0.005; -3.90 vs. -0.68 diopters, P = 0.005; 6.81 vs. 1.71 µm, P = 0.043, respectively). Visual outcome and patient satisfaction were significantly better in those who underwent DMEK (2.91 vs. 4.45, P = 0.011; 3.27 vs. 5.64, P = 0.016, respectively). The estimated time for recovery and rehabilitation was significantly shorter after DMEK (64.0 vs. 9.3 days, P = 0.012). Contrast threshold was better after the DMEK. Ten of 11 patients preferred DMEK procedure. CONCLUSIONS The Patients preferred DMEK to PKP. The reasons for better patient satisfaction after DMEK included better uncorrected visual acuity, better best-corrected visual acuity, avoidance of surgery-induced astigmatism, and lower HOA.