Literature DB >> 22271071

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

Anna S Kitzmann1, George R Wandling, John E Sutphin, Kenneth M Goins, Michael D Wagoner.   

Abstract

To evaluate the outcomes of repeat corneal transplantation, either penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) or Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK), for penetrating keratoplasty grafts which failed due to corneal edema. The charts of 24 eyes with failed PKP grafts, due to corneal edema, which underwent a repeat corneal transplant (PKP in 17 eyes [Group 1] and DSAEK in seven eyes [Group 2]) between 2003 and 2007 were retrospectively reviewed. There was no statistically significant difference in the median postoperative visual acuity between the two groups at 1, 2, or 3 years. In Group 1, two (18%) eyes had a final visual acuity ≥ 20/40, in contrast to four (80%) eyes in Group 2, which was statistically significant (P = 0.038). Seven (41%) of the Group 1 eyes developed postoperative complications compared to only one (14%) eye in Group 2. Eleven (65%) of the Group 1 eyes and five (71%) of Group 2 eyes had clear grafts on the last examination. There was no statistically significant difference in the graft survival rate for Group 1 versus Group 2 at 3 years (57.9% vs 68.6%, P = 0.507). There was a trend towards better postoperative visual acuity, a lower postoperative complication rate, and a higher graft survival rate in eyes that underwent DSAEK rather than repeat PKP for graft failure secondary to corneal edema. Given this small, retrospective study, future studies comparing repeat PKP with DSAEK are warranted to determine which procedure allows for improved outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22271071     DOI: 10.1007/s10792-012-9518-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0165-5701            Impact factor:   2.031


  24 in total

1.  Changing indications for corneal transplantation at the King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital (1983-2002).

Authors:  Abdul-Elah Al-Towerki; El-Sayed Gonnah; Ali Al-Rajhi; Michael D Wagoner
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  Corneal re-graft: indications and outcome.

Authors:  C J MacEwen; Z U Khan; E Anderson; C G MacEwen
Journal:  Ophthalmic Surg       Date:  1988-10

3.  Preexisting and postoperative glaucoma in repeated corneal transplantation.

Authors:  Shimon Rumelt; Valery Bersudsky; Tami Blum-Hareuveni; Uri Rehany
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.651

4.  The success and survival of repeat corneal grafts.

Authors:  C M Kirkness; E Ezra; N S Rice; A D Steele
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  The profile of repeated corneal transplantation.

Authors:  V Bersudsky; T Blum-Hareuveni; U Rehany; S Rumelt
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  Indications, complications and prognosis for repeat penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors:  C H Robinson
Journal:  Ophthalmic Surg       Date:  1979-05

7.  Visual results in repeat penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors:  M S Insler; B Pechous
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1986-09-15       Impact factor: 5.258

8.  Endothelial keratoplasty to restore clarity to a failed penetrating graft.

Authors:  Francis W Price; Marianne O Price
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.651

9.  Indications for and outcomes of repeat penetrating keratoplasty.

Authors:  C J Rapuano; E J Cohen; S E Brady; J J Arentsen; P R Laibson
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1990-06-15       Impact factor: 5.258

10.  Indications and outcome of repeat penetrating keratoplasty in India.

Authors:  M Vanathi; Namrata Sharma; Rajesh Sinha; Radhika Tandon; Jeewan S Titiyal; Rasik B Vajpayee
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-11-02       Impact factor: 2.209

View more
  7 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Differential Survival of Penetrating and Lamellar Transplants in Management of Failed Corneal Grafts.

Authors:  Jonathan Aboshiha; Mark N A Jones; Cathy L Hopkinson; Daniel F P Larkin
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 7.389

4.  Publication trends in corneal transplantation: a bibliometric analysis.

Authors:  Evre Pekel; Gökhan Pekel
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.209

Review 5.  Risk Factors for Endothelial Decompensation after Penetrating Keratoplasty and Its Novel Therapeutic Strategies.

Authors:  Mengyuan Liu; Jing Hong
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 1.909

6.  DMEK after penetrating keratoplasty: cohort with DMEK grafts and descemetorhexis larger than full-thickness graft.

Authors:  F A Steindor; J Menzel-Severing; M Borrelli; S Schrader; G Geerling
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 3.535

7.  Descemet stripping automated endothelialkeratoplasty (DSAEK) versus repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) to manage eyes with failed corneal graft.

Authors:  Abdulrahman Khairallah
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.526

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.