4.4 Article

Outcomes of repeat penetrating keratoplasty and risk factors for graft failure

期刊

CORNEA
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 429-434

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00003226-200307000-00008

关键词

penetrating keratoplasty; repeat; regraft; survival; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To compare repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) with primary PKP with respect to patient characteristics, survival rates, and risk factors for graft failure. Methods. Retrospective, consecutive, noncomparative case series of 116 patients who underwent repeat PKP and who were identified from a cohort of 696 PKPs performed by one surgeon over a 7.5-year period. Results. Compared with patients who underwent primary PKP, regraft patients were 5 years older, had a higher rate of peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS), were more likely to require intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications prior to surgery, were more likely to develop postoperative corneal neovascularization, were less likely to be phakic, and were more likely to undergo PKP in conjunction with a lens procedure. There was no difference between the two groups with respect to the distribution of original diagnoses leading to PKP and the rate of graft rejection. Two- and 5-year survival rates for repeat PKP were 63.9% and 45.6%, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, the original diagnosis leading to corneal transplantation, the presence of preoperative PAS, intraoperative anterior vitrectomy, and postoperative corneal neovascularization were identified as risk factors for graft failure in patients undergoing a regraft. Conclusions. Patients undergoing PKP for the first and second time share common risk factors for graft failure, namely, the original diagnosis leading to corneal transplantation, the presence of preoperative PAS, and the occurrence of postoperative corneal neovascularization. The difference in graft survival rates between the two groups can be partially explained on the basis of higher rates of the latter two risk factors among regrafts.

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

4.4
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