Bilateral penetrating keratoplasty--indications, results and review of literature.
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To analyze the indications, functional results, and rates of graft rejection and failure after bilateral penetrating keratoplasty (PK) in a major eye care hospital and research center in India.
METHODS
Retrospective review of the case records of 38 patients who underwent bilateral PK and had at least 6 months follow-up after corneal transplantation in the second eye.
RESULTS
The mean age of the 38 patients (20 M, 18 F) was 35 +/- 25 years (range, 0.5 to 79 years). Mean follow-up was 49 +/- 23 months (range, 13.4 to 116.4 months) after surgery in the first eye and 31 +/- 22 months (range, 6.6 to 103.6 months) after surgery in the second eye. The average time interval between surgery in the first and second eye was 18 +/- 10 months (range, 0 to 38 months). The commonest indications for surgery were corneal dystrophies (50%), aphakic bullous keratopathy (21%), and keratoconus (11%). Postoperatively, secondary glaucoma occurred in 2 first and 3 second eyes. Best-corrected visual acuity at last follow-up was > 6/12 in 34% of first eyes and 50% of second eyes, and was < 6/60 in 26% and 18% of first and second eyes respectively. Allograft rejection occurred in 4 of the first eyes and 3 of the second eyes. The two-year graft survival rate in first eyes was 70% and in second eyes was 83%. Worse outcomes were noted in grafts performed for secondary endothelial failure. Earlier graft failure occurred in first eyes (54 +/- 5 months) compared to second eyes (79 +/- 10 months) (Logrank Test p = 0.2311).
CONCLUSIONS
Bilateral penetrating keratoplasty has reasonable success in selected patients. Corneal transplantation in the second eye does not seem to increase the risk of graft rejection in either eye.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.