Feng Wang1, Tao Zhang1, Yan Wei Kang1, Jing Liang He1, Shi-Ming Li2, Shao-Wei Li1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Aier School of Ophthalmology, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China. 2. Beijing Ophthalmology Visual Science Key Lab, Beijing Institute of Ophthalmology, Capital Medical University, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare graft survival, graft rejection and the visual acuity outcome of endothelial keratoplasty (EK) with repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PK) after failed PK. METHODS: A systematic literature search with subsequent screening of the identified articles was conducted to obtain potentially eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies. To assess the methodological quality of the included studies, the Jadad Scale or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used based on the study design. To calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for graft survival, graft rejection and the visual acuity outcome with 95% confidential intervals (CIs), a fixed- or random-effects model was applied based on the heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS: Four comparative cohort studies (n = 649 eyes) comparing the outcome of EK with repeat PK after failed PK were included in this review. These studies were considered high quality, with NOS scores ranging from 6 to 9. The EK group showed a significantly lower risk of graft rejection than the repeat PK group [0.43 (95% CI: 0.23-0.80, P = 0.007)]. In addition, no significant differences were observed in a comparison of graft survival and visual acuity (P values ranged from 0.81 to 0.97 using the Der-Simonian and Laird random-effects model). CONCLUSIONS: As an alternative to repeat PK, EK after failed PK allows for potential reduction of the risk of graft rejection; however, it does not appear to confer a significant advantage in graft survival or visual acuity.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to compare graft survival, graft rejection and the visual acuity outcome of endothelial keratoplasty (EK) with repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PK) after failed PK. METHODS: A systematic literature search with subsequent screening of the identified articles was conducted to obtain potentially eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies. To assess the methodological quality of the included studies, the Jadad Scale or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used based on the study design. To calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for graft survival, graft rejection and the visual acuity outcome with 95% confidential intervals (CIs), a fixed- or random-effects model was applied based on the heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS: Four comparative cohort studies (n = 649 eyes) comparing the outcome of EK with repeat PK after failed PK were included in this review. These studies were considered high quality, with NOS scores ranging from 6 to 9. The EK group showed a significantly lower risk of graft rejection than the repeat PK group [0.43 (95% CI: 0.23-0.80, P = 0.007)]. In addition, no significant differences were observed in a comparison of graft survival and visual acuity (P values ranged from 0.81 to 0.97 using the Der-Simonian and Laird random-effects model). CONCLUSIONS: As an alternative to repeat PK, EK after failed PK allows for potential reduction of the risk of graft rejection; however, it does not appear to confer a significant advantage in graft survival or visual acuity.
Authors: Faris R Ghosheh; Federico A Cremona; Christopher J Rapuano; Elisabeth J Cohen; Brandon D Ayres; Kristin M Hammersmith; Irving M Raber; Peter R Laibson Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Katja C Iselin; Emily Greenan; Colin Hynes; Sandra Shaw; Tim Fulcher; William J Power; Barry Quill; Marc Guerin; Weng H Lee; Conor C Murphy Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Paul Lohan; Nick Murphy; Oliver Treacy; Kevin Lynch; Maurice Morcos; Bingling Chen; Aideen E Ryan; Matthew D Griffin; Thomas Ritter Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: W John Armitage; Christine Goodchild; Matthew D Griffin; David J Gunn; Jesper Hjortdal; Paul Lohan; Conor C Murphy; Uwe Pleyer; Thomas Ritter; Derek M Tole; Bertrand Vabres Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Fang-Chi Hsiao; Po-Yuan Chen; Yaa-Jyuhn James Meir; Hsin-Yuan Tan; Ching-Hsi Hsiao; Hsin-Chiung Lin; David Hui-Kang Ma; Lung-Kun Yeh; Wei-Chi Wu; Hung-Chi Chen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-17 Impact factor: 3.390