4.6 Article

Keratoplasty in the United States A 10-Year Review from 2005 through 2014

Journal

OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 122, Issue 12, Pages 2432-2442

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.08.017

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc, New York, New York

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To report evolving indications and preferred techniques of corneal transplantation in the United States. Design: Retrospective review. Methods: Annual reports from the Eye Bank Association of America on corneal graft distribution in the United States from 2005 through 2014 were reviewed. Main Outcome Measures: Number and percentage of corneal grafts distributed for various types of keratoplasty and their surgical indications in the United States. Results: The total number of corneal transplants increased from 44 277 in 2005 to 46 513 in 2014. In the past decade, penetrating keratoplasty dramatically decreased (from 95% to 42%) and largely has been replaced by various lamellar keratoplasty (LK) techniques (from 5% to 58%). Descemet stripping (automated) endothelial keratoplasty was the most common (50%) type of corneal transplantation performed in the United Stated in 2014. The volume of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) has been doubling every year since 2011 and accounted for 11% of total endothelial keratoplasties in 2014. There was a significant shift in indication for corneal transplantation, with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy (22%) being the most common, followed by corneal edema occurring after cataract surgery (12%) in 2014. Eye banks supplied precut corneal grafts for 68% of LK techniques in 2014. Conclusions: In the United States, there has been a major shift in preferred keratoplasty techniques over the past decade, with a wide adoption of new LK techniques. (C) 2015 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available