Background: To analyze objective and subjective visual quality differences between descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and ultra-thin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) with a paired contralateral-eye design. Methods: A cross-sectional, comparative, and observational case series study between DMEK and UT-DSAEK were presented. Visual acuity, refractive status and corneal quality assessment were compared between both endothelial keratoplasty techniques. The sample consisted of 20 eyes (10 patients) diagnosed with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy. All measurements were performed preoperatively and at six months after surgery. Analyzed data included the measurement of objective scattering index, modulation transfer function, Strehl ratio, and optical quality assessment (OQAS) values. Contrast sensitivity, subjective patient satisfaction, visual acuity, tomography, pachymetry, endothelial cell count, and refraction status were also analyzed. Results: Objective and subjective visual quality variables had similar results among UT-DSAEK and DMEK procedures. Statistically significant differences favoring DMEK against UT-DSAEK were found in endothelial cell density (658.80 ± 139.33 and 1059.00 ± 421.84 cells/mm², respectively), pachymetry (621.20 ± 33.74 and 529.70 ± 30.00 µm, respectively), and follow-up (45.50 ± 24.76 and 15.50 ± 8.43 months, respectively). Conclusions: UT-DSAEK and DMEK revealed no differences in terms of objective and subjective visual quality. However, DMEK showed a faster recovery during the follow-up, increased endothelial cell density, lower pachymetry, and a more anatomical posterior keratometry against UT-DSAEK in this case series paired-eye study.

To analyze the influence of the final spherical equivalent (SE) in LogMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) one year after refractive surgery. We analysed refractive results, their predictability and efficacy, and the safety results of the different methods as secondary outcomes. Refractive Surgery Unit of the Institut Català de Retina (ICR) in Barcelona, Spain. Retrospective, analytical observational study. Retrospective and observational study of 654 eyes of 327 patients who underwent refractive surgery to treat their myopia or myopic astigmatism using LASIK, FS-LASIK, PRK, PRK Xtra or ICL-type lens implantation surgery were included. The correlation between the SE in absolute value was statistically significant in all techniques utilized, reaching higher values in the FS-LASIK and LASIK techniques, 0.774 and 0.706 respectively, and lesser values in PRK (0.480) and PRK Xtra (0.482). A significant adjustment via a univariate linear regression model could be implemented in all techniques, albeit the R² coefficient of determination values were higher than those for the FS-LASIK (0.599) and LASIK (0.494) techniques. There is a positive correlation between post-surgical SE value and post-operative LogMAR UDVA. These regression models can be adjusted to predict the final UDVA according to the final SE. The techniques that are most influenced by the final SE in terms of their visual results are FS-LASIK and LASIK.

Purpose: To assess agreement between corneal aberration measurements made through swept-source optical coherence tomography using a new anterior segment imaging device (Anterion) and a Scheimpflug imaging device (Pentacam HR) in healthy subjects. Methods: Cross-sectional study. In 50 eyes of 50 healthy subjects, 14 aberration parameters (7 across the anterior corneal surface and 7 across the total surface) were measured in 4 mm and 6 mm optic zones using each device: oblique trefoil (Z3_-3), vertical coma (Z3_-1), horizontal coma (Z3_1), horizontal trefoil (Z3_3), spherical aberration (Z4_0), root mean square (RMS) lower order aberrations (LOA) and RMS higher order aberrations (HOA). Data for the two devices were compared through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), paired t tests, limits of agreement (LoA) and Bland Altman plots. Results: Vertical coma was the only corneal aberration parameter that consistently showed excellent agreement (ICC > 0.8, mean difference −0.019, LoA −0.165 to 0.126). Good agreement (ICC = 0.75) between the devices was observed for RMS HOA, but this was slightly worse in the 6 mm optical zone (ICC = 0.667 for anterior RMS HOA). No over- or underestimation trend by one or other device was noted. Agreement was poor to moderate for the rest of the corneal parameters (ICC 0.2 to 0.7). Conclusion: Despite good agreement overall for vertical coma and RMS HOA values, agreement for the remaining corneal aberration measurements was poor to moderate. As mean differences in our sample were overall small, in normal eyes these devices could be clinically judged as interchangeable.