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
  • [1] Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty for Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty: Visual Outcomes and Graft Survival
    Pasari, Anand
    Price, Marianne O.
    Feng, Matthew T.
    Price, Francis W., Jr.
    CORNEA, 2019, 38 (02) : 151 - 156
  • [2] Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty for Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty: Influence of the Graft-Host Junction on the Graft Survival Rate
    Omoto, Takashi
    Sakisaka, Toshihiro
    Toyono, Tetsuya
    Yoshida, Junko
    Shirakawa, Rika
    Miyai, Takashi
    Yamagami, Satoru
    Usui, Tomohiko
    CORNEA, 2018, 37 (04) : 462 - 465
  • [3] Response to "Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty for Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty: Visual Outcomes and Graft Survival"
    Agrawal, Swati
    Kumar, Ajit
    Khurana, Ashi
    CORNEA, 2019, 38 (03) : E7 - E7
  • [4] Endothelial Keratoplasty Without Descemet Stripping After Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty
    de Paula, Fernando Heitor
    Kamyar, Roheena
    Shtein, Roni M.
    Sugar, Alan
    Mian, Shahzad I.
    CORNEA, 2012, 31 (06) : 645 - 648
  • [5] Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty in Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty Patients
    Mifflin, Mark D.
    Neuffer, Marcus C.
    Zaugg, Brian E.
    Sikder, Shameema
    Moshirfar, Majid
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2011, 152 (02) : 323 - 324
  • [6] Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty After Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Jangi, Anisha A.
    Ritterband, David C.
    Wu, Elaine I.
    Mehta, Veeral V.
    Koplin, Richard S.
    Seedor, John A.
    CORNEA, 2012, 31 (10) : 1148 - 1153
  • [7] Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty After Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty Survival, Rejection Risk, and Visual Outcome
    Mitry, Danny
    Bhogal, Maninder
    Patel, Amit K.
    Lee, Bryan S.
    Chai, Shu Ming
    Price, Marianne O.
    Price, Francis W., Jr.
    Jun, Albert S.
    Aldave, Anthony J.
    Mehta, Jodhbir S.
    Busin, Massimo
    Allan, Bruce D.
    JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2014, 132 (06) : 742 - 749
  • [8] Comparison of Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty and Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in the Treatment of Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Einan-Lifshitz, Adi
    Mednick, Zale
    Belkin, Avner
    Sorkin, Nir
    Alshaker, Sara
    Boutin, Tanguy
    Chan, Clara C.
    Rootman, David S.
    CORNEA, 2019, 38 (09) : 1077 - 1082
  • [9] Outcomes of Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with failed therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty
    van Sorge, Arlette
    Kerkhoff, Frank
    Halbertsma, Feico J.
    Schalij-Delfos, Nicoline
    ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2014, 92 (02) : E167 - E168
  • [10] Endothelial Cell Loss and Graft Survival after Descemet's Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty and Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Ang, Marcus
    Mehta, Jodhbir S.
    Lim, Fiona
    Bose, Saideep
    Htoon, Hla Myint
    Tan, Donald
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 119 (11) : 2239 - 2244