Repeat Penetrating Keratoplasty: Indications and Prognosis, 1995–2005

Yalnız-Akkaya, Züleyha; Nurözler, Ayşe Burcu; Yıldız, Elvin; Onat, Mustafa; Budak, Koray; Duman, Sunay

doi:10.1177/112067210901900306

Cited by 41 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other recent studies of repeat PKP for failed grafts in the last decade have reported between 45 and 74% [1][2][3]11]. The graft survival rate for the PKP eyes was 76.0 and 57.9% at 2 and 3 years, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Since the traditional treatment for failed grafts has been a repeat PKP, there have been various studies analyzing the outcomes of repeat PKP for graft failure [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and comparing repeat PKPs to first time PKP [11,12]. Repeat PKPs have been reported to have a poorer prognosis both in terms of visual acuity outcomes and graft survival compared to first time PKPs [1-4, 11, 12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(3) . A córnea é um órgão privilegiado imunologicamente com menor risco de rejeição em comparação com outros órgãos (4) por isso o transplante desse órgão vem sendo praticado cada vez mais no Brasil (2,5) . Além do privilégio imunológico, outros fatores como melhor organização dos Bancos de Olhos (que proporciona maior captação e preservação de córneas), melhor seleção do tecido doado e os avanços da farmacologia, das microcirurgias oculares permitem realização de transplantes em situações antes consideradas inoperáveis (2) .…”

Section: Resumo Introduçãounclassified

Avaliação de tecido corneano processado por um Banco de Olhos de referência

Silva¹,

Vargas²,

Rocha³

et al. 2009

Arq. Bras. Oftalmol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, visual rehabilitation takes longer with a stable refraction at a later time. [3][4][5][6][7] Furthermore, there is a delayed possibility of adjusting contact lenses or eyeglasses, and adjusting visual aids frequently is more complicated due to high astigmatism. Therefore, these medically complicated patients may benefit from our newly gained knowledge of lamellar surgical techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2015

Exp Clin Transplant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To investigate visual outcome and postoperative complications in patients undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed with 5 patients who underwent Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Visual acuity, rehabilitation phase, refraction stability, central corneal thickness, endothelial cell count, possible immunologic reactions, and optical coherence tomography of the anterior eye segment were evaluated. A subjective questionnaire was used to evaluate patient satisfaction. Results: There were no intraoperative complications. All patients had graft detachment, which made air injection necessary. In all cases, visual acuity significantly increased (medium visual acuity [logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution]: 0.68 ± 0.31 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution after 4 weeks and 0.35 ± 0.37 after 6 months; P = .043), refraction was stable, corneal thickness was reduced (average, 514 ± 11 μm), and endothelial cell count was reduced (average, 1398 ± 510 cells/mm 2 ) after 6 months, which corresponds with a medium loss 40%.In the questionnaire, visual outcome, estimated time for recovery, and rehabilitation and patient satisfaction were better after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty than penetrating keratoplasty. No postoperative elevation of pressure, development of pupillary block, or graft rejection, and no peripheral anterior synechiae or other abnormalities were observed with optical coherence tomography during the first 6 postoperative months. Conclusions: Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty is a suitable technique for the treatment of graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty and helped our patients rapidly achieve good visual acuity, with reduction of postoperative complications, but the visual outcome might be limited.

show abstract

Repeat Penetrating Keratoplasty: Indications and Prognosis, 1995–2005

Abstract: The complications of repeated surgery may reduce final graft clarity and visual acuity; the disease process necessitating regrafting may carry a poorer prognosis for sight.

Cited by 41 publications

References 24 publications

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

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

Avaliação de tecido corneano processado por um Banco de Olhos de referência

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About