Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2005
Early results of penetrating keratoplasty following limbal stem cell transplantation.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sangwan Virender S, Fernandes Merle, Bansal Aashish K, Vemuganti Geeta K, Rao Gullapalli N
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To describe the early results of penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in patients who had earlier received limbal transplantation (LT).
METHODS: Prospective, non-comparative interventional case series comprising of four patients with limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) due to chemical injury (Cases 1, 2, 4) and xeroderma pigmentosum (Case 3). Cadaveric kerato-limbal allografts or living-related conjunctival-limbal allografts were done in four eyes followed by PKP for visual rehabilitation 3-4.5 months later. The following details were noted: demographics, primary aetiology, type of limbal transplant (cadaveric or living-related), immunosuppression, vision and ocular surface stability before and after LT and PKP, surgical complications and outcome of PKP.
RESULTS: Three eyes received living-related conjunctival-limbal allotransplantation and one received cadaveric kerato-limbal allograft. Duration of follow up after PKP ranged from 4 to 11 months. Visual acuity improved in the early postoperative period in all patients but reduced in 2 due to endothelial rejection and after trans-scleral cyclophotocoagulation for medically uncontrolled glaucoma. The ocular surface remained stable in all patients. All patients were started on immunosuppression on the first postoperative day. This was continued till the last follow-up visit. Post-PKP complications were punctate epithelial keratopathy, corneal allograft rejection and secondary glaucoma (one patient each).
CONCLUSION: Satisfactory visual rehabilitation is possible after PKP following LT without compromising ocular surface stability. However, a prolonged and close follow-up is warranted to avert complications.
METHODS: Prospective, non-comparative interventional case series comprising of four patients with limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) due to chemical injury (Cases 1, 2, 4) and xeroderma pigmentosum (Case 3). Cadaveric kerato-limbal allografts or living-related conjunctival-limbal allografts were done in four eyes followed by PKP for visual rehabilitation 3-4.5 months later. The following details were noted: demographics, primary aetiology, type of limbal transplant (cadaveric or living-related), immunosuppression, vision and ocular surface stability before and after LT and PKP, surgical complications and outcome of PKP.
RESULTS: Three eyes received living-related conjunctival-limbal allotransplantation and one received cadaveric kerato-limbal allograft. Duration of follow up after PKP ranged from 4 to 11 months. Visual acuity improved in the early postoperative period in all patients but reduced in 2 due to endothelial rejection and after trans-scleral cyclophotocoagulation for medically uncontrolled glaucoma. The ocular surface remained stable in all patients. All patients were started on immunosuppression on the first postoperative day. This was continued till the last follow-up visit. Post-PKP complications were punctate epithelial keratopathy, corneal allograft rejection and secondary glaucoma (one patient each).
CONCLUSION: Satisfactory visual rehabilitation is possible after PKP following LT without compromising ocular surface stability. However, a prolonged and close follow-up is warranted to avert complications.