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
  • [21] A Case of Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in a failed Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Singh, Sanjay Kumar
    Yadav, Reena
    Sharma, Ashmita
    NEPALESE JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 10 (02) : 188 - 192
  • [22] Descemet's Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Three-Year Graft and Endothelial Cell Survival Compared with Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Price, Marianne O.
    Gorovoy, Mark
    Price, Francis W., Jr.
    Benetz, Beth A.
    Menegay, Harry J.
    Lass, Jonathan H.
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2013, 120 (02) : 246 - 251
  • [23] Comparison of the Visual Outcomes of Descemet's Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Penetrating Keratoplasty
    Chikama, T. -I.
    Sato, Y.
    Morita, Y.
    Yanai, R.
    Yamada, N.
    Morishige, N.
    Nishida, T.
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2010, 51 (13)
  • [24] Comparison of graft survival following penetrating keratoplasty and Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with a glaucoma drainage device
    Shawn M. Iverson
    Oriel Spierer
    George C. Papachristou
    William J. Feuer
    Wei Shi
    David S. Greenfield
    Terrence P. O’Brien
    International Ophthalmology, 2018, 38 : 223 - 231
  • [25] Comparison of graft survival following penetrating keratoplasty and Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with a glaucoma drainage device
    Iverson, Shawn M.
    Spierer, Oriel
    Papachristou, George C.
    Feuer, William J.
    Shi, Wei
    Greenfield, David S.
    O'Brien, Terrence P.
    INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 38 (01) : 223 - 231
  • [26] Comparison of primary graft survival following penetrating keratoplasty and Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with prior trabeculectomy
    Iverson, Shawn M.
    Spierer, Oriel
    Papachristou, George C.
    Feuer, William J.
    Shi, Wei
    Greenfield, David S.
    O'Brien, Terrence P.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2015, 99 (11) : 1477 - 1482
  • [27] Visual Recovery and Endothelial Cell Survival After Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty for Failed Penetrating Keratoplasty Grafts-A Cohort Study
    Tarantino-Scherrer, Janine N.
    Kaufmann, Claude
    Bochmann, Frank
    Bachmann, Lucas M.
    Thiel, Michael A.
    CORNEA, 2015, 34 (09) : 1024 - 1029
  • [28] Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty for a failed penetrating keratoplasty graft in a pseudophakic patient with a toric intraocular lens: a case report
    George D Kymionis
    George A Kontadakis
    BMC Ophthalmology, 13
  • [29] Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty for a failed penetrating keratoplasty graft in a pseudophakic patient with a toric intraocular lens: a case report
    Kymionis, George D.
    Kontadakis, George A.
    BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2013, 13
  • [30] Repeat keratoplasty in failed Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty
    Kaur, Manpreet
    Titiyal, Jeewan S.
    Gagrani, Meghal
    Shaikh, Farin
    Agarwal, Tushar
    Sinha, Rajesh
    Sharma, Namrata
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2019, 67 (10) : 1586 - 1592