Outcomes of Repeat Endothelial Keratoplasty in Patients With Failed Deep Lamellar Endothelial Keratoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of repeat endothelial keratoplasty (EK) in patients with previous failed deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty (DLEK). METHODS: This retrospective interventional case series involved the review of clinical records of patients with failed DLEK surgery who underwent repeat EK surgery. RESULTS: Ten eyes of 9 patients (2 men and 7 women) were included. The mean age at initial DLEK surgery was 71.2 ± 8.0 years (range, 59-80 years), and the duration to repeat EK was 47 ± 14.3 months (range, 16-63 months). Removal of the failed DLEK donor disc was performed in 7 eyes (70%); in 3 eyes (30%), repeat EK was performed without removal of the failed donor disc. The mean follow-up after repeat EK surgery was 21.7 months (range, 3-44 months). Improvements in corneal clarity and visual acuity were obtained in all eyes. Mean preoperative logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 1.46 (20/577; range, 20/100 to counting fingers) and improved to 0.64 (20/87; range, 20/30 to 20/300) at the final follow-up (P = 0.03). Four eyes had limited BCVA secondary to ocular comorbidites, including age-related macular degeneration, cystoid macular edema, and advanced glaucomatous optic neuropathy. No significant postoperative complications were noted after repeat EK surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat EK in patients with late DLEK failure is effective in improving corneal clarity and is a viable alternative to penetrating keratoplasty (PK). Surgery may be performed with or without removal of the failed donor disc. Visual outcomes may be limited by the existence of ocular comorbidities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".