Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty Under Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty: Visual Rehabilitation and Graft Survival Rate

被引:58
|
作者
Anshu, Arundhati [1 ,2 ]
Price, Marianne O. [2 ]
Price, Francis W., Jr. [1 ]
机构
[1] Cornea Res Fdn Amer, Indianapolis, IN 46260 USA
[2] Price Vis Grp, Indianapolis, IN USA
关键词
OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; RISK-FACTORS; CORNEAL TRANSPLANTATION; REJECTION; OUTCOMES; FAILURE; EYES; DONOR; COMPLICATIONS; IMPLANT;
D O I
10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.04.032
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate graft survival, risk factors for failure, complications, and visual rehabilitation in patients who underwent Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) under a failed penetrating keratoplasty (PK). Design: Retrospective interventional case series. Participants: Sixty eyes (60 patients) treated at Price Vision Group, Indianapolis, Indiana. Methods: Graft diameters ranged from 8 to 9 mm and were similar to 1 mm larger than the previous PK. The Descemet's membrane was not stripped in the majority (54, 84%). The graft was inserted using forceps or a Busin funnel glide (Moria, Anthony, France). The probability of graft survival was calculated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Graft survival, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and complications. Results: The mean recipient age was 68 years (range, 17-95 years). Forty eyes had 1 previous failed PK, 14 eyes had 2 previous failed PKs, and 6 eyes had 3 previous failed PKs. Thirty-one eyes (52%) had preexisting glaucoma, and 16 eyes (27%) had prior glaucoma surgery (trabeculectomy in 4, shunt procedure in 12). Fifty-five grafts were performed for visual rehabilitation, and 5 grafts were performed for pain relief. Median follow-up was 2.3 years (range, 2 months to 6 years). Median preoperative BCVA was 1.23 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (range, 0.2-3, Snellen 20/340), and median postoperative visual improvement was 0.6 logMAR (6 lines), range -0.3 to +2.7. Four eyes had graft detachment (6.6%), 7 eyes (10.5%) had endothelial rejection, and 10 eyes (16.6%) had graft failure (primary failure in 2, secondary failure in 8). The overall secondary graft survival rates were 98%, 90%, 81%, and 74% at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively. Prior glaucoma shunt was the principal risk factor for graft failure. The graft survival rates were 100%, 96%, 96%, and 96% in eyes without a prior shunt versus 93%, 74%, 44%, and 22% with a prior shunt at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively (P = 0.0005; relative risk = 20). Peripheral anterior synechiae (P = 0.14), neovascularization (P = 0.88), endothelial rejection (P = 0.59), and number of prior PKs (P = 0.13) were not independent risk factors for graft failure. Conclusions: Endothelial keratoplasty under a previous failed PK is a useful alternative to a repeat standard PK, particularly in eyes with an acceptable topography and refractive outcome before failure. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Ophthalmology 2011;118:2155-2160 (C) 2011 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
引用
收藏
页码:2155 / 2160
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty After Failed Descemet Stripping Without Endothelial Keratoplasty
    Rao, Rohini
    Borkar, Durga S.
    Colby, Kathryn A.
    Veldman, Peter B.
    CORNEA, 2017, 36 (07) : 763 - 766
  • [32] Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty: An alternative to penetrating keratoplasty
    Chih, Andreea
    Lugo, Miguel
    Kowing, Dianne
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2008, 85 (03) : 152 - 157
  • [33] Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy
    Hjortdal, Jesper
    Ehlers, Niels
    ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2009, 87 (03) : 310 - 314
  • [34] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty After Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Pierne, Kevin
    Panthier, Christophe
    Courtin, Romain
    Mazharian, Adrien
    Souedan, Vael
    Gatinel, Damien
    Saad, Alain
    CORNEA, 2019, 38 (03) : 280 - 284
  • [35] Changing Indications for Penetrating Keratoplasty With the Introduction of Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty
    Baqai, J.
    Grostern, R.
    Rubenstein, J.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2010, 51 (13)
  • [36] Comparison Of Graft Survival Following Penetrating Keratoplasty And Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty In Medically And Surgically Treated Glaucoma Patients
    Papachristou, George
    Greenfield, David
    O'Brien, Terrence
    Schiffman, Joyce
    Shi, Wei
    Iverson, Shawn
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2013, 54 (15)
  • [37] Outcomes of rebubbling for graft detachment after Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty or Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty
    Bhalerao, Sushank A.
    Mohamed, Ashik
    Vaddavalli, Pravin K.
    Murthy, Somasheila, I
    Reddy, Jagadesh C.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2020, 68 (01) : 48 - 53
  • [38] Comparison of outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for penetrating keratoplasty graft failure due to corneal edema
    Kitzmann, Anna S.
    Wandling, George R.
    Sutphin, John E.
    Goins, Kenneth M.
    Wagoner, Michael D.
    INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 32 (01) : 15 - 23
  • [39] Comparison of outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty versus Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for penetrating keratoplasty graft failure due to corneal edema
    Anna S. Kitzmann
    George R. Wandling
    John E. Sutphin
    Kenneth M. Goins
    Michael D. Wagoner
    International Ophthalmology, 2012, 32 : 15 - 23
  • [40] Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) versus repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) to manage eyes with failed corneal graft
    Khairallah, Abdulrahman
    ANNALS OF SAUDI MEDICINE, 2018, 38 (01) : 516 - 521