4.4 Article

Penetrating Keratoplasty for Keratoconus With or Without Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 14-18

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31818225dd

Keywords

graft survival; keratoconus; penetrating keratoplasty; vernal keratoconjunctivitis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate graft survival, postoperative complications, and Visual outcome after penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) for keratoconus (KC) in eyes with or without a history of vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC). Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on all cases of PKP performed at King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2001, for KC. Results: Four hundred sixty-four eyes were included in the study, including 80 (17.2%) eyes with VKC and 384 (82.8%) without VKC. Five-year graft survival was 97.3% and 95.5% in eyes with or without VKC, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in Kaplan-Meier graft Survival between the 2 groups Lit any time interval. There were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of eyes experiencing postoperative complications in eyes with or without VKC (27.5% vs 31.8%, respectively; P = 0.50). However, late-onset persistent epithelial defects were significantly more likely to Occur in eyes with VKC (6.3% vs 1.8%; P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the prevalence of endothelial rejection, bacterial keratitis, glaucoma, wound dehiscence, early-onset persistent epithelial defects, or secondary cataract, The median final best-corrected visual acuity was 20/30 in both groups. The percentage of eyes with a final best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better was 76.2% in eyes with VKC and 71.9% in eyes without VKC (P = 0.49). Conclusions: Graft survival, postoperative complications, and Visual outcome are comparable after PKP for KC in eyes with or without VKC.

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