4.4 Article

Corneal Transplantation in New Zealand 2000 to 2009

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 290-295

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001481

Keywords

corneal transplantation; adverse events; rejection; visual acuity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To quantify all minor/major adverse events in a large cohort of consecutive corneal transplants, particularly in respect to penetrating keratoplasty (PKP). Methods: All corneal transplants in the Auckland region over a 10-year period (2000-2009) were identified through the New Zealand National Eye Bank. Relevant clinical records were assessed for this period and 2 years after. All intraoperative or postoperative adverse events/complications, visual acuity, and graft outcomes were recorded. Results: Detailed data were available for 941 (94.5%) of 996 procedures in the study period, including 834 PKPs, 73 deep anterior lamellar keratoplasties, 28 Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasties, and 6 tectonic keratoplasties. Intraoperative adverse events occurred in 117 (12.4%) procedures, most commonly positive vitreous pressure (6.3%). Postoperative adverse events included elevated intraocular pressure (21.3%, > 30 mm Hg), graft rejection (29.8%), suture-related complications (30.1%), dry eye (15.9%), epithelial defect (9.8%), wound compromise (3.4%), microbial keratitis (3.2%), and endophthalmitis (0.6%). At 2 years, 58.7% of eyes achieved best-corrected visual acuity of >= 6/12 (20/40) and 69.6% achieved >= 6/18 (20/60). Graft survival at 2 years was 87.9%, 92.3%, and 100% for PKP, deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, and Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty, respectively. Conclusions: In this study of 941 consecutive, principally penetrating, corneal transplants, adverse events were found to be more common than typically reported. In an era in which PKP is increasingly substituted by lamellar surgery, this provides useful insight into operative and postoperative adverse events in penetrating surgery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available