4.6 Article

Clinical Outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in Eyes With a Glaucoma Drainage Device

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 199, 期 -, 页码 150-158

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.11.014

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in eyes with a glaucoma drainage device (GDD). DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: Clinical outcomes of 23 DMEK procedures for bullous keratopathy (52%), failed previous transplant (39%), or Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (9%) in 20 eyes (19 patients) with a GDD were retrospectively analyzed at 2 tertiary referral centers. Main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), postoperative complications, and graft survival. RESULTS: Mean length of postoperative follow-up after DMEK was 19 (+/- 17) months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed an 89% cumulative graft success rate at 1 year postoperatively. At 1 year postoperatively (n = 15 eyes), BCVA improved by >= 2 Snellen lines in 11 eyes (73%) and remained stable in 4 eyes (27%). Donor ECD decreased by 37% (n = 14), 60% (n = 11), and 71% (n = 11) at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, respectively. Postoperative complications up to 2 years postoperatively comprised pupillary block in 1 eye (successfully reversed by partial air removal), visually significant graft detachment requiring rebubbling in 5 eyes (22%), allograft rejection successfully reversed with topical steroids in 2 eyes (9%), secondary graft failure in 2 eyes (9%), and cataract in 1 of 3 phakic eyes (33%). Re-keratoplasty was required in 2 eyes (9%). CONCLUSIONS: With specific surgical modifications, DMEK provided acceptable clinical outcomes when taking the complexity of these eyes into account. However, presence of a GDD may reduce graft survival times and may pose a risk for more frequent regrafting. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据