Descemet's Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty Under Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty: Visual Rehabilitation and Graft Survival Rate

被引:58
作者
Anshu, Arundhati [1 ,2 ]
Price, Marianne O. [2 ]
Price, Francis W., Jr. [1 ]
机构
[1] Cornea Res Fdn Amer, Indianapolis, IN 46260 USA
[2] Price Vis Grp, Indianapolis, IN USA
关键词
OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY; RISK-FACTORS; CORNEAL TRANSPLANTATION; REJECTION; OUTCOMES; FAILURE; EYES; DONOR; COMPLICATIONS; IMPLANT;
D O I
10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.04.032
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate graft survival, risk factors for failure, complications, and visual rehabilitation in patients who underwent Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) under a failed penetrating keratoplasty (PK). Design: Retrospective interventional case series. Participants: Sixty eyes (60 patients) treated at Price Vision Group, Indianapolis, Indiana. Methods: Graft diameters ranged from 8 to 9 mm and were similar to 1 mm larger than the previous PK. The Descemet's membrane was not stripped in the majority (54, 84%). The graft was inserted using forceps or a Busin funnel glide (Moria, Anthony, France). The probability of graft survival was calculated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Main Outcome Measures: Graft survival, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and complications. Results: The mean recipient age was 68 years (range, 17-95 years). Forty eyes had 1 previous failed PK, 14 eyes had 2 previous failed PKs, and 6 eyes had 3 previous failed PKs. Thirty-one eyes (52%) had preexisting glaucoma, and 16 eyes (27%) had prior glaucoma surgery (trabeculectomy in 4, shunt procedure in 12). Fifty-five grafts were performed for visual rehabilitation, and 5 grafts were performed for pain relief. Median follow-up was 2.3 years (range, 2 months to 6 years). Median preoperative BCVA was 1.23 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (range, 0.2-3, Snellen 20/340), and median postoperative visual improvement was 0.6 logMAR (6 lines), range -0.3 to +2.7. Four eyes had graft detachment (6.6%), 7 eyes (10.5%) had endothelial rejection, and 10 eyes (16.6%) had graft failure (primary failure in 2, secondary failure in 8). The overall secondary graft survival rates were 98%, 90%, 81%, and 74% at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively. Prior glaucoma shunt was the principal risk factor for graft failure. The graft survival rates were 100%, 96%, 96%, and 96% in eyes without a prior shunt versus 93%, 74%, 44%, and 22% with a prior shunt at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively (P = 0.0005; relative risk = 20). Peripheral anterior synechiae (P = 0.14), neovascularization (P = 0.88), endothelial rejection (P = 0.59), and number of prior PKs (P = 0.13) were not independent risk factors for graft failure. Conclusions: Endothelial keratoplasty under a previous failed PK is a useful alternative to a repeat standard PK, particularly in eyes with an acceptable topography and refractive outcome before failure. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. Ophthalmology 2011;118:2155-2160 (C) 2011 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
引用
收藏
页码:2155 / 2160
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Endothelial Keratoplasty After Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty: An Alternative to Repeat Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Ang, Marcus
    Ho, Henrietta
    Wong, Cheewai
    Htoon, Hla Myint
    Mehta, Jodhbir S.
    Tan, Donald
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2014, 158 (06) : 1221 - 1227
  • [32] Outcomes of rebubbling for graft detachment after Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty or Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty
    Bhalerao, Sushank A.
    Mohamed, Ashik
    Vaddavalli, Pravin K.
    Murthy, Somasheila, I
    Reddy, Jagadesh C.
    [J]. INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2020, 68 (01) : 48 - 53
  • [33] Endothelial Cell Survival and Graft Profile Analysis in Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty
    Rice, Aine
    Spokes, David M.
    Anand, Seema
    Ball, James L.
    [J]. CORNEA, 2011, 30 (08) : 865 - 871
  • [34] Comparison of intraocular pressure post penetrating keratoplasty vs Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty
    Sharma, Rahul A.
    Bursztyn, Lulu L. C. D.
    Golesic, Elizabeth
    Mather, Rookaya
    Tingey, David P.
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY-JOURNAL CANADIEN D OPHTALMOLOGIE, 2016, 51 (01): : 19 - 24
  • [35] Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) versus repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) to manage eyes with failed corneal graft
    Khairallah, Abdulrahman
    [J]. ANNALS OF SAUDI MEDICINE, 2018, 38 (01) : 516 - 521
  • [36] Outcomes of Repeat Endothelial Keratoplasty in Patients With Failed Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty
    Kim, Peter
    Yeung, Sonia N.
    Lichtinger, Alejandro
    Amiran, Maoz D.
    Shanmugam, Shobha V.
    Iovieno, Alfonso
    Slomovic, Allan R.
    Rootman, David S.
    [J]. CORNEA, 2012, 31 (10) : 1154 - 1157
  • [37] Outcome of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for graft failure after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty
    Agha, Bishr
    Shajari, Mehdi
    Slavik-Lencova, Anna
    Kohnen, Thomas
    Schmack, Ingo
    [J]. CLINICAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2019, 13 : 553 - 559
  • [38] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty: 10-Year Cell Loss and Failure Rate Compared With Descemet Stripping Endothelial Keratoplasty and Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Price, Marianne O.
    Kanapka, Lauren
    Kollman, Craig
    Lass, Jonathan H.
    Price, Francis W.
    [J]. CORNEA, 2024, 43 (11) : 1403 - 1409
  • [39] Factors associated with graft survival and endothelial cell density after Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty
    Ishii, Nobuhito
    Yamaguchi, Takefumi
    Yazu, Hiroyuki
    Satake, Yoshiyuki
    Yoshida, Akitoshi
    Shimazaki, Jun
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2016, 6
  • [40] Outcomes of Trabeculectomy After Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Comparison With Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Boey, Pui Yi
    Mehta, Jodhbir S.
    Ho, Ching Lin
    Tan, Donald T. H.
    Wong, Tina T.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 153 (06) : 1091 - 1098