American journal of ophthalmology · 2019
Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty and Penetrating Keratoplasty.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Woo Jyh-Haur, Ang Marcus, Htoon Hla Myint, Tan Donald
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the long-term graft survival outcomes and complications of patients who underwent Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK), and penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) and bullous keratopathy (BK).
DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cohort study.
METHODS: Patients with FECD and BK who underwent DMEK (121 eyes), DSAEK (423 eyes), or PK (405 eyes) from the prospective cohort from the Singapore Corneal Transplant Registry were included. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted to compare the survival probabilities of the 3 groups. The main outcome measure was graft survival.
RESULTS: The DMEK group had the best overall cumulative graft survival of 97.4%, compared to DSAEK (78.4%) and PK (54.6%) (P < .001). In eyes with FECD, the DMEK group had the best graft survival of 98.7% compared to DSAEK (96.2%) and PK (73.5%) (P = .009). The graft survival in eyes with BK was poorer overall; however, the DMEK group still had the best graft survival of 94.7%, compared to DSAEK (65.1%) and PK (47.0%, P = .001). Eyes that underwent DMEK had the lowest rate of graft rejection (1.7% vs DSAEK 5.0% vs PK 14.1%, P < .001) and postoperative elevation of intraocular pressure (11.6% vs DSAEK 23.6% vs PK 22.5%, P = .015).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent DMEK for FECD and BK had better graft survival compared to DSAEK and PK. Eyes that underwent DMEK also had a significantly lower rate of graft rejection and elevated intraocular pressure compared to DSAEK and PK for the same indications.
DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cohort study.
METHODS: Patients with FECD and BK who underwent DMEK (121 eyes), DSAEK (423 eyes), or PK (405 eyes) from the prospective cohort from the Singapore Corneal Transplant Registry were included. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted to compare the survival probabilities of the 3 groups. The main outcome measure was graft survival.
RESULTS: The DMEK group had the best overall cumulative graft survival of 97.4%, compared to DSAEK (78.4%) and PK (54.6%) (P < .001). In eyes with FECD, the DMEK group had the best graft survival of 98.7% compared to DSAEK (96.2%) and PK (73.5%) (P = .009). The graft survival in eyes with BK was poorer overall; however, the DMEK group still had the best graft survival of 94.7%, compared to DSAEK (65.1%) and PK (47.0%, P = .001). Eyes that underwent DMEK had the lowest rate of graft rejection (1.7% vs DSAEK 5.0% vs PK 14.1%, P < .001) and postoperative elevation of intraocular pressure (11.6% vs DSAEK 23.6% vs PK 22.5%, P = .015).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent DMEK for FECD and BK had better graft survival compared to DSAEK and PK. Eyes that underwent DMEK also had a significantly lower rate of graft rejection and elevated intraocular pressure compared to DSAEK and PK for the same indications.