4.3 Article

Outcome of therapeutic deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in advanced Acanthamoeba keratitis

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 68, 期 3, 页码 442-446

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_307_19

关键词

Acanthamoeba keratitis; deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty; Microbial keratitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To report and analyze the outcomes of therapeutic deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) in patients with advanced Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK). Methods: Medical records of microbiologically confirmed AK, underwent DALK from 2004 to 2017, were reviewed and the data related to early and late outcome including complications were retrieved. Outcome of cases with largest diameter of infiltrate >= 8 mm at the time of surgery (advanced keratitis) were analyzed and compared with those with less severe keratitis (infiltrate size less than 8 mm). Results: Out of 23 patients of AK in whom DALK was performed, ten (43.4%) patients had advanced keratitis. Mean age of these patients was 38.7 +/- 8.6 years (range, 25 to 56). Median visual acuity at presentation was 2.78 (IQR, 1.79-3.0) that improved to 1.79 (IQR, 0.70-2.78) postoperatively. Early complications included recurrence of AK in 2 (20%), Descemet's membrane detachment in 5 (50%), and persistent epithelial defect in 3 (30%) cases. Overall, 6 (60%) grafts failed, whereas 4 (40%) patients had clear graft at their last follow-up. Median follow-up of these cases was 5 months (IQR, 1.4-11.4). One graft developed stromal rejection, which resolved with increased dose of corticosteroids. In comparison, DALK performed for less severe keratitis (N = 13) had 1 (7.6%) recurrence and 2 (15.8%) grafts failure (OR, 8.25). The probability of one-year graft survival and eradication of infection was 32% and 74.1%, respectively, in advanced cases compared to 91.6% and 83.9% in less severe cases. Conclusion: Outcome of DALK in advanced Acanthamoeba keratitis is less favorable compared to those carried out for less severe keratitis cases.

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

4.3
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