Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (28)
- Conference Proceeding (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (33)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (33)
Keywords
- DMEK (5)
- Amblyopia (3)
- Dose response (3)
- Eccentric fixation (3)
- Efficiency (3)
- Occlusion treatment (3)
- Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (2)
- Scheimpflug imaging (2)
- Visual quality (2)
- corneal edema (2)
Institute
- Medizin (33) (remove)
Purpose: Filler injections for aesthetic purposes are very popular, but can have far-reaching and irreversible consequences. This report describes the course of a patient with devastating complications after glabellar hyaluronic acid injection, their pathomechanism, management and outcome.
Observations: A healthy, 43-year-old woman underwent her first hyaluronic acid injection in the glabella and went blind on her left eye immediately thereafter. Massaging of the injection area and observation were performed, before she presented with swelling of the left forehead and upper lid, ptosis, complete ophthalmoplegia and blindness in our hospital. Immediate massaging of the globe and systemic therapy including acetylsalicylic acid, tinzaparin sodium and cortisone was initiated and hyaluronidase injections in the injection area were performed. In the further course, the patient developed necrotic and hemorrhagic skin and mucosal lesions, lagophthalmos, anterior and posterior segment ischemia and globe hypotonia with consecutive globe deformation. In the follow-up of 2.5 months, lid swelling, lagophthalmos and ptosis resolved and keratopathy improved but blindness, skin lesions and strabismus with reduced eye motility were still present and madarosis and early enophthalmos were detected.
Conclusions and Importance: The outcome of ophthalmic artery occlusion after hyaluronic acid filler injection is poor. Sufficient knowledge about facial anatomy, the implementation of filler injections and the management of complications is essential for the practitioner. The patient should be clarified about potential and even rare risks of these procedures.
Purpose: The use of a non-diffractive extended-depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) with slight myopia of −0.5 D on the non-dominant eye increases the spectacle independence and has good subjective tolerance with optical phenomena comparable to those of a monofocal IOL. This case report describes the course of a myopic patient who underwent refractive lens exchange, didn't tolerate mini-monovision and received IOL exchange therefore.
Observations: A healthy, 62-year-old male with myopia of approximately −5 D underwent refractive lens exchange with a non-diffractive EDOF-IOL on both eyes with slight myopia on the non-dominant left eye (mini-monovision). The operation was performed without any complications, postoperative treatment was due to the clinic's standard procedure. Two weeks postoperative the patient presented with uncorrected distance visual acuity of 0.0 logMAR, a subjective refraction of −0.25/−0.25/142° and corrected distance visual acuity of 0.1 logMAR on the right eye. On the left eye, distance visual acuity was 0.4 logMAR with a subjective refraction of −0.5/−0.75/9° (intended mini-monovision) and corrected distance visual acuity of 0.0 logMAR. Binocular distance visual acuity was 0.0 logMAR. The patient complained about the occurrence of optical phenomena at dim light while driving a car and subjective reduced visual acuity. After an IOL exchange on the left eye with the implantation of the same type of non-diffractive EDOF-IOL aimed for emmetropia, the patient was symptom-free and reported no more subjective complaints.
Conclusions: Despite the satisfying subjective and objective visual outcome which is proven in multiple studies, the subjective perception of a mini-monovision with a non-diffractive EDOF-IOL can vary individually. A preoperative assessment of the patient's needs and tolerance of a mini-monovision is crucial for a satisfying postoperative outcome.
Purpose: To analyze refractive and topographic changes secondary to Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in pseudophakic eyes with Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy (FED). Methods: Eighty-seven pseudophakic eyes of 74 patients who underwent subsequent DMEK surgery for corneal endothelial decompensation and associated visual impairment were included. Median post-operative follow-up time was 12 months (range: 3–26 months). Main outcome measures were pre- and post-operative manifest refraction, anterior and posterior corneal astigmatism, simulated keratometry (CASimK) and Q value obtained by Scheimpflug imaging. Secondary outcome measures included corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), central corneal densitometry, central corneal thickness, corneal volume (CV), anterior chamber volume (ACV) and anterior chamber depth (ACD). Results: After DMEK surgery, mean pre-operative spherical equivalent (± SD) changed from + 0.04 ± 1.73 D to + 0.37 ± 1.30 D post-operatively (p = 0.06). CDVA, proportion of emmetropic eyes, ACV and ACD increased significantly during follow-up. There was also a significant decrease in posterior corneal astigmatism, central corneal densitometry, central corneal thickness and corneal volume over time (p = 0.001). Only anterior corneal astigmatism and simulated keratometry (CASimK) remained fairly stable after DMEK. Conclusion: Despite tendencies toward a hyperopic shift, changes in SE were not significant and refraction remained overall stable in pseudophakic patients undergoing DMEK for FED. Analysis of corneal parameters by Scheimpflug imaging mainly revealed changes in posterior corneal astigmatism pointing out the relevance of posterior corneal profile changes during edema resolution after DMEK.
Purpose: To compare the effective lens position (ELP), anterior chamber depth (ACD) changes, and visual outcomes in patients with and without pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) after cataract surgery.
Design: Prospective, randomized, fellow-eye controlled clinical case series.
Methods: This prospective comparative case series enrolled 56 eyes of 56 consecutive patients with (n = 28) or without PEX (n = 28) and clinically significant cataract who underwent standard phacoemulsification and were implanted with single-piece acrylic posterior chamber intraocular lenses (IOLs). The primary outcome parameters were the ACD referring to the distance between the corneal anterior surface and the lens anterior surface, which is an indicator of the postoperative axial position of the IOL (the so-called ELP) and distance corrected visual acuity (DCVA).
Results: Before surgery, the ACD was 2.54 ± 0.42 mm in the PEX group and 2.53 ± 0.38 mm in the control group (p = 0.941). Postoperatively, the ACD was 4.29 ± 0.71 mm in the PEX group and 4.33 ± 0.72 mm in the normal group, respectively (p = 0.533). There was no significant difference in ACD changes between groups (PEX group: 1.75 ± 0.74 mm, control group: 1.81 ± 0.61 mm, p = 0.806) and DCVA pre- (p = 0.469) and postoperatively (PEX group: 0.11 ± 0.13 logMAR, control group: 0.09 ± 0.17 logMAR, p = 0.245) between groups.
Conclusion: Preoperative and postoperative ACD, as an indicator of ELP, between PEX eyes and healthy eyes after cataract surgery showed no significant difference. Phacoemulsification induced similar changes in eyes with PEX compared to healthy eyes.
Purpose: To investigate short-term (3 months follow-up) changes in visual quality following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED). Methods: In this prospective institutional case series, 51 patients that underwent DMEK for FED were included. Assessment included the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire preoperatively, at 1 month, and 3 months after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were anterior segment parameters acquired by Scheimpflug imaging, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and endothelial cell density (ECD). Results: Glare, hazy vision, blurred vision, and daily fluctuation in vision were the symptoms mostly reported preoperatively. All symptoms demonstrated a significant reduction of item scores for severity, frequency, and bothersome in the course after DMEK (P < 0.01). Glare and fluctuation in vision remained to some extent during the follow-up period (median score = 1). Preoperatively, corneal densitometry correlated moderately to weakly with severity of hazy vision (rs = 0.39; P = 0.03) and frequency (rs = 0.26; P = 0.02) as well as severity (rs = 0.27; P = 0.03) of blurry vision. CDVA and central corneal thickness (CCT) did not correlate with visual complains. Conclusions: Following DMEK for FED, patient-reported visual symptoms assessed by the QoV questionnaire represent a useful tool providing valuable information on the impact of DMEK on visual quality that cannot be directly estimated by morphological parameters and visual acuity only.