Eye & contact lens · 2016
Indications for Keratoplasty at 3 Academic Centers from 2002 to 2012.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hsu Kimberly M, Chang Shu-Hong, Brothers Whitney, Edelstein Sean L, Hsu Hugo Y, Harocopos George J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether indications for keratoplasty differ between academic centers and the Eye Bank Association of America (EBAA) annual statistics from 2002 to 2012.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for the indications for keratoplasty from 2002 to 2012 based on surgical specimens originating from three different academic centers. Data were compared with statistical reports obtained from the EBAA for the corresponding years.
RESULTS: From 2002 to 2007, at Washington University in St Louis (WU), the most common indication for keratoplasty was graft failure at 31.6%. At St Louis University, the most common indications for keratoplasty were pseudophakic and aphakic bullous keratopathy (PBK/ABK) at 34.6% followed closely by graft failure at 32.7%. Combining the 2002 to 2007 EBAA data, the most common indication for keratoplasty was PBK/ABK at 19.5%, whereas regrafts accounted for only 13.0% of keratoplasties. From 2008 to 2012, regrafts accounted for 41.9% of keratoplasties at WU and 33.1% of keratoplasties at University of California, Davis. In contrast, the EBAA data showed that only 11.4% of keratoplasties were regrafts.
CONCLUSIONS: Graft failure accounted for approximately 30% to 40% of indications for keratoplasties at three academic centers from 2002 to 2012, which was more than double and in some cases triple that of the EBAA data during this period. These higher frequencies of regrafting may represent a referral bias of patients with complicated cases to academic centers who then require multiple keratoplasties.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for the indications for keratoplasty from 2002 to 2012 based on surgical specimens originating from three different academic centers. Data were compared with statistical reports obtained from the EBAA for the corresponding years.
RESULTS: From 2002 to 2007, at Washington University in St Louis (WU), the most common indication for keratoplasty was graft failure at 31.6%. At St Louis University, the most common indications for keratoplasty were pseudophakic and aphakic bullous keratopathy (PBK/ABK) at 34.6% followed closely by graft failure at 32.7%. Combining the 2002 to 2007 EBAA data, the most common indication for keratoplasty was PBK/ABK at 19.5%, whereas regrafts accounted for only 13.0% of keratoplasties. From 2008 to 2012, regrafts accounted for 41.9% of keratoplasties at WU and 33.1% of keratoplasties at University of California, Davis. In contrast, the EBAA data showed that only 11.4% of keratoplasties were regrafts.
CONCLUSIONS: Graft failure accounted for approximately 30% to 40% of indications for keratoplasties at three academic centers from 2002 to 2012, which was more than double and in some cases triple that of the EBAA data during this period. These higher frequencies of regrafting may represent a referral bias of patients with complicated cases to academic centers who then require multiple keratoplasties.