4.6 Article

Endothelial Keratoplasty After Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty: An Alternative to Repeat Penetrating Keratoplasty

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 158, Issue 6, Pages 1221-1227

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.08.024

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Singapore National Research Foundation Translational & Clinical Research (TCR) [NMRC/TCR/002-SERI/2008-TCR 621/41/2008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To analyze graft survival of endothelial keratoplasty (EK) under a previous failed penetrating keratoplasty (PK) compared to repeat PK. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative case series. METHODS: Analysis involved consecutive patients who underwent either a repeat PK or EK under PK, after failed PK, whose primary surgical indication was pseudophakic bullous keratopathy at a single tertiary center. Clinical data and donor and recipient characteristics were recorded from our prospective cohort from the Singapore Corneal Transplant Study. Main outcome measure was graft survival up to 5 years follow-up. RESULTS: We included a total of 113 eyes that underwent a repeat PK (n = 81) or EK under a failed PK (n = 32). Cumulative graft survival probabilities comparing repeat PK with EK under PK were at 91.9% vs 96.2% (1 year), 82.6% vs 91.6% (2 years), 66.8% vs 86.4% (3 years), and 51.3% vs 86.4% up to 5 years follow-up, respectively (log-rank P value = .013). Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed, which adjusted for: age, sex, risk factors for graft failure (corneal neovascularization, ocular surface disease, glaucoma, active corneal inflammation, anterior synechiae), donor endothelial cell count, and repeat donor size. Repeat PK was a significant risk factor for graft failure compared to performing an EK under PK (hazard ratio: 10.17; 95% CI 1.10-93.63; P = .041). CONCLUSION: In our study of eyes with bullous keratopathy, endothelial keratoplasty under a previously failed PK provided better graft survival outcomes than repeat PK, adjusting for potential confounders and risk factors for graft failure. (C) 2014 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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