PURPOSE: To understand the influence of preoperative corneal conditions, combined implant surgeries, and subsequent rejection on the aqueous flare value following penetrating keratoplasty (PK). METHODS: A total of 86 eyes of 86 patients were included. PK alone was performed on eyes with keratoconus (n = 7), corneal scar (from previous trauma or nonherpetic infection; n = 19), pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK) (n = 16), and for regraft (n = 14). Combined ECCE and PC-IOL implantation (triple procedure) was performed on 17 eyes with corneal scar, and combined AC-IOL exchange was performed on 13 eyes with PBK. Aqueous flare was measured with a laser flare-cell meter at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The mean follow-up was 24.7 (range 7-76) months. RESULTS: There were 11 cases (12.8%) of endothelial rejection (two in PK for corneal scar group, two in triple procedure group, two in PK for PBK group, three in PK and AC-IOL exchange group, and two in regraft group). Two corneas in PK for corneal scar group, one in PK and AC-IOL exchange group, and one in regraft group cleared up later; the remaining seven cases failed subsequently. Another 10 grafts (11.6%) failed from other causes. Eventually, 69 grafts (80.2%) remained clear at last follow-up. There was a significant difference in aqueous flare values among eyes undergoing PK only for keratoconus, corneal scar, PBK, and regraft from 1 week to 3 months postoperatively. In the corneal scar group, aqueous flare value was significantly higher from 1 week to 3 months when combined with cataract surgery. In the PBK group, the value was significantly higher from 1 week to 1 month and 6 months again when combined with AC-IOL exchange. Notably, significantly higher flare values were measured from 1 week to 6 months in eyes with later rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative diagnoses and additional implant surgeries influenced the aqueous flare counts at the early postoperative period. Persistently elevated flare value may be associated with later rejection.
PURPOSE: To understand the influence of preoperative corneal conditions, combined implant surgeries, and subsequent rejection on the aqueous flare value following penetrating keratoplasty (PK). METHODS: A total of 86 eyes of 86 patients were included. PK alone was performed on eyes with keratoconus (n = 7), corneal scar (from previous trauma or nonherpetic infection; n = 19), pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK) (n = 16), and for regraft (n = 14). Combined ECCE and PC-IOL implantation (triple procedure) was performed on 17 eyes with corneal scar, and combined AC-IOL exchange was performed on 13 eyes with PBK. Aqueous flare was measured with a laser flare-cell meter at 1 week and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The mean follow-up was 24.7 (range 7-76) months. RESULTS: There were 11 cases (12.8%) of endothelial rejection (two in PK for corneal scar group, two in triple procedure group, two in PK for PBK group, three in PK and AC-IOL exchange group, and two in regraft group). Two corneas in PK for corneal scar group, one in PK and AC-IOL exchange group, and one in regraft group cleared up later; the remaining seven cases failed subsequently. Another 10 grafts (11.6%) failed from other causes. Eventually, 69 grafts (80.2%) remained clear at last follow-up. There was a significant difference in aqueous flare values among eyes undergoing PK only for keratoconus, corneal scar, PBK, and regraft from 1 week to 3 months postoperatively. In the corneal scar group, aqueous flare value was significantly higher from 1 week to 3 months when combined with cataract surgery. In the PBK group, the value was significantly higher from 1 week to 1 month and 6 months again when combined with AC-IOL exchange. Notably, significantly higher flare values were measured from 1 week to 6 months in eyes with later rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative diagnoses and additional implant surgeries influenced the aqueous flare counts at the early postoperative period. Persistently elevated flare value may be associated with later rejection.
Authors: David Hui-Kang Ma; Lung-Kung Yeh; Hung-Chi Chen; Anna Marie Chang; Yi-Ju Ho; Shirley H L Chang; Unique Yang Journal: Mol Vis Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 2.367