The long-term results of keratoplasty in eyes with a glaucoma drainage device

被引:71
作者
Alvarenga, LS
Mannis, MJ
Brandt, JD
Lee, WB
Schwab, IR
Lim, MC
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Ophthalmol, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA
[2] Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Ophthalmol, Sao Paulo, Brazil
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.ajo.2004.02.058
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To study the outcome of penetrating keratoplasty (PK) in eyes with a glaucoma drainage device (GDD). DESIGN: Retrospective case-controlled study. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent PK from December 1986 to September 2002 at the University of California, Davis (n = 1,974). We identified 33 patients (40 grafts) who were treated with a GDD and followed up for 6 months or more after PK. Graft survival and glaucoma control were compared with grafts in patients without glaucoma (n = 40) and patients with medically controlled glaucoma (n = 17). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log rank test, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), Fisher exact test, and chi(2) were used in group comparisons. Multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The percentages of clear grafts in the glaucoma drainage device group were 58.5% and 25.8% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. At these time points, glaucoma was controlled in 74.0% and 63.1% of the eyes, respectively. Both medically controlled glaucoma patients and nonglaucomatous patients had higher graft survival percentages at comparable time points. The presence of a GDD was an important factor influencing graft survival (Hazard ratio = 6.8). CONCLUSION: A GDD implant is an independent risk factor for graft failure. Although these devices are effective in controlling intraocular pressure (IOP) in the majority of eyes in the presence of PK, corneal graft clarity is often compromised. (C) 2004 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:200 / 205
页数:6
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   Graft survival and glaucoma outcome after simultaneous penetrating keratoplasty and Ahmed glaucoma valve implant [J].
Al-Torbak, A .
CORNEA, 2003, 22 (03) :194-197
[2]   Corneal graft survival and intraocular pressure control after penetrating keratoplasty and glaucoma drainage device implantation [J].
Arroyave, CP ;
Scott, IU ;
Fantes, FE ;
Feuer, WJ ;
Murray, TG .
OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2001, 108 (11) :1978-1985
[3]  
Assaad M H, 1999, Curr Opin Ophthalmol, V10, P147, DOI 10.1097/00055735-199904000-00012
[4]   Penetrating keratoplasty and glaucoma [J].
Ayyala, RS .
SURVEY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2000, 45 (02) :91-105
[5]  
BEEBE WE, 1990, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V97, P1414
[6]   Clinical experience with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant in eyes with prior or concurrent penetrating keratoplasties [J].
Coleman, AL ;
Mondino, BJ ;
Wilson, MR ;
Casey, R .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1997, 123 (01) :54-61
[7]  
HILL RA, 1991, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V98, P1042
[8]   THE USE OF SILICONE DRAINAGE TUBING TO CONTROL POST-KERATOPLASTY GLAUCOMA [J].
KIRKNESS, CM ;
LING, Y ;
RICE, NSC .
EYE, 1988, 2 :583-590
[9]   Long-term results of eyes with penetrating keratoplasty and glaucoma drainage tube implant [J].
Kwon, YH ;
Taylor, JM ;
Hong, S ;
Honkanen, RA ;
Zimmerman, MB ;
Alward, WLM ;
Sutphin, JE .
OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2001, 108 (02) :272-278
[10]   Corneal endothelial cell damage from glaucoma drainage device materials [J].
Lim, KS .
CORNEA, 2003, 22 (04) :352-354