Literature DB >> 10768334

Indications for and outcomes of repeat penetrating keratoplasty, 1989-1995.

N P Patel1, T Kim, C J Rapuano, E J Cohen, P R Laibson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the indications for and outcomes of repeat penetrating keratoplasty over a 7-year period and compare them to a similar study over the prior 6-year period at the same institution.
DESIGN: Retrospective noncomparative case series. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-three consecutive repeat corneal transplants performed by one of five corneal surgeons between 1989 and 1995 were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reasons for primary and regraft failure, indications for the initial corneal graft, graft clarity, and best-corrected visual acuity were measured on each patient.
RESULTS: Between 1989 and 1995, 16% (271 of 1689) of transplants performed by our cornea group were regrafts compared with 9% (165 of 1860) in the period from 1983 to 1988 (P < 0.01). The most common indications for penetrating keratoplasty before regraft were pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (27%, 61 of 223), failed graft (20%, 44 of 223), Fuchs' dystrophy (11%, 24 of 223), aphakic bullous keratopathy (9%, 21 of 223), keratoconus (8%, 17 of 223), and herpes simplex keratitis (6%, 14 of 223). Compared with the prior study period of 1983 to 1988, an increase was revealed in the incidence of failed graft (11% to 20%, P = 0.03), and a decrease was revealed in the incidence of aphakic bullous keratopathy (19% to 9%, P = 0.01). Of the 223 regrafts, 55 (25%) failed during the study period (range, 1 month to 7.5 years; mean 2.1 years). Eleven percent (6 of 55) of regraft failures occurred within 6 months, and 55% (30 of 55) failed within 18 months. Of the 150 regrafts with 2 years follow-up (mean, 3.9 years), 111 (74%) had clear grafts. A best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 to 20/40 was achieved in 41% (46 of 111), 20/50 to 20/100 in 32% (36 of 111), 20/200 to 20/400 in 21% (23 of 111), and counting fingers to no light perception in 5% (6 of 111).
CONCLUSIONS: Failed grafts are increasing as an indication for penetrating keratoplasty. Graft clarity and visual acuity results continue to be very good, supporting the use of repeat corneal transplantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10768334     DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00003-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  19 in total

1.  Comparison of outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for penetrating keratoplasty graft failure due to corneal edema.

Authors:  Anna S Kitzmann; George R Wandling; John E Sutphin; Kenneth M Goins; Michael D Wagoner
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01-22       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Repeat penetrating keratoplasty: indications, graft survival, and visual outcome.

Authors:  H Al-Mezaine; M D Wagoner
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Visual outcome in corneal grafts: a preliminary analysis of the Swedish Corneal Transplant Register.

Authors:  M Claesson; W J Armitage; P Fagerholm; U Stenevi
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for graft failure following penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors:  Sonja Heinzelmann; Daniel Böhringer; Philipp Eberwein; Thabo Lapp; Thomas Reinhard; Philip Maier
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Management of Corneal Graft Rejection - A Case Series Report and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Pho Nguyen; Felise Barte; Shuntaro Shinada; Samuel C Yiu
Journal:  J Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2010-09-29

6.  Cornea procurement from very old donors: post organ culture cornea outcome and recipient graft outcome.

Authors:  P Gain; G Thuret; C Chiquet; P Rizzi; J L Pugniet; S Acquart; J J Colpart; J C Le Petit; J Maugery
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.638

7.  Impact of new lamellar techniques of keratoplasty on eye bank activity.

Authors:  Marc Muraine; David Toubeau; Julie Gueudry; Gerard Brasseur
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 8.  Graft failure: III. Glaucoma escalation after penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors:  Emily C Greenlee; Young H Kwon
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 9.  Endothelial keratoplasty versus repeat penetrating keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Feng Wang; Tao Zhang; Yan Wei Kang; Jing Liang He; Shi-Ming Li; Shao-Wei Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Donor Corneal Transplantation vs Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis in Patients with Previous Graft Failures: A Retrospective Single Center Study (An American Ophthalmological Society Thesis).

Authors:  Esen K Akpek; Sandra D Cassard; Karen Dunlap; Sarah Hahn; Pradeep Y Ramulu
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2015
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.