4.4 Article

Influence of Preoperative Donor Tissue Characteristics on Graft Dislocation Rate After Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty

期刊

CORNEA
卷 32, 期 12, 页码 1527-1530

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182a966b4

关键词

endothelial keratoplasty; dislocation; rebubble; donor characteristics; DSAEK; corneal donor tissue

资金

  1. Midwest Eye Bank
  2. [NIH/NEI EY017885]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose:To determine the influence of preoperative donor tissue characteristics on the graft dislocation rate after performing a Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK).Methods:We retrospectively analyzed the associations between donor tissue characteristics and graft dislocation rates for consecutive DSAEK surgeries performed in a 4-year period at a single institution.Results:From June 2007 to June 2011, 64 (18%) of 355 eyes underwent a procedure for graft dislocation. There were no differences in donor age, preoperative endothelial graft thickness, preprocessing endothelial cell density, change in endothelial cell density after processing, time from death to tissue processing, or time from tissue processing to surgery between eyes that experienced dislocations and those that did not (P > 0.05 for each). The graft recipient's corneal disease diagnosis, preoperative corneal thickness, preoperative visual acuity, glaucoma status, history of glaucoma surgery, and cataract surgery at the time of performing the DSAEK were not associated with an increased rate of dislocation (P > 0.05 for each). Recipients who experienced graft dislocation were significantly older (73.6 vs. 70.2 years, P = 0.03) and more likely to undergo subsequent repeat transplantation (29.7% vs. 10.7%, P < 0.0001).Conclusions:We found no correlation between any corneal donor tissue characteristic and graft dislocation after the DSAEK was performed. Graft dislocation was more common in older recipients. Patients with dislocation had a higher rate of subsequent transplantation.

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