Literature DB >> 25089353

Center and surgeon effect on outcomes of endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in the United Kingdom.

Edward B Greenrod1, Mark N A Jones2, Stephen Kaye3, Daniel F P Larkin4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare national outcomes of endothelial keratoplasty (EK) and penetrating keratoplasty (PK) during comparable 6-year periods.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of national registry data.
SETTING: United Kingdom National Transplant Registry, 2000 through 2011, inclusive. PATIENT POPULATION: All United Kingdom patients undergoing first EK (n = 2074) for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy or pseudophakic bullous keratopathy from January 2006 through December 2011. Comparison cohort of patients undergoing first PK (n = 2622, same indications, January 2000 through December 2005). OBSERVATION PROCEDURE: Year of surgery, surgeon and center experience, corneal diagnosis, donor factors, patient factors, and surgical risk factors were analyzed against graft survival and visual outcomes.
RESULTS: For both Fuchs endothelial dystrophy and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, EK achieved better average best-corrected acuity and lower refractive error. For both groups, graft failure was significantly higher for EK than PK. EK failure in Fuchs endothelial dystrophy was associated with center experience (hazard ratio [HR], 2.3; P < .0001), donor endothelial density (HR, 1.8; P = .01), glaucoma at time of surgery (HR, 2.1; P = .003), and donor age older than 75 years (HR, 1.3; P = .05). EK failure in pseudophakic bullous keratopathy was associated with center experience of fewer than 15 cases (HR, 2.0; P < .0001) and glaucoma at time of surgery (HR, 1.7; P = .002).
CONCLUSIONS: Prospective national registry data for EK showed higher graft failure than is seen in PK or in retrospective case series of EK. Higher failure rates may be acceptable given established benefits of the procedure, including lower refractive error, structural globe integrity, and faster visual recovery. Center experience influenced EK survival more than surgeon experience, and overall surgical outcomes may be improved by standardized techniques and support within experienced units.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25089353     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.07.037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0002-9394            Impact factor:   5.258


  16 in total

1.  Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty from a single centre study.

Authors:  S Heinzelmann; D Böhringer; P Eberwein; T Reinhard; P Maier
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Outcome of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with an Ahmed glaucoma valve.

Authors:  Patrick J Chiam; Robert Cheeseman; Vivian W Ho; Vito Romano; Anshoo Choudhary; Mark Batterbury; Stephen B Kaye; Colin E Willoughby
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 3.  Indications, surgical procedures and outcomes of keratoplasty at a Tertiary University-based hospital: a review of 10 years' experience.

Authors:  Eman M Al-Sharif; Majed Alkharashi
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 2.031

4.  A 5-year analysis of endothelial vs penetrating keratoplasty graft survival in Chinese patients.

Authors:  Anita Lai Wah Li; Rachel Pui Wai Kwok; Ka Wai Kam; Alvin Lerrmann Young
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 1.779

5.  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

6.  Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty versus Descemet Stripping Automated Keratoplasty - Outcome of One Single Surgeon's More Than 200 Initial Consecutive Cases.

Authors:  Christina Jansen; Madeleine Zetterberg
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-03-02

Review 7.  Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure.

Authors:  Alastair J Stuart; Vito Romano; Gianni Virgili; Alex J Shortt
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-06-25

Review 8.  Advanced glaucoma at diagnosis: current perspectives.

Authors:  Alan Kastner; Anthony J King
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 9.  Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy: The vicious cycle of Fuchs pathogenesis.

Authors:  Stephan Ong Tone; Viridiana Kocaba; Myriam Böhm; Adam Wylegala; Tomas L White; Ula V Jurkunas
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 21.198

10.  Long-Term Functional and Anatomical Outcome after Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Prospective Single-Center Study.

Authors:  Jeroen van Rooij; Angela Engel; Lies Remeijer; Hugo van Cleijnenbreugel; René Wubbels
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-03-11       Impact factor: 1.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.