Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2016
Systematic review comparing penetrating keratoplasty and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for management of keratoconus.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Henein Christin, Nanavaty Mayank A
Аннотация
AIM: Perception of reduced incidence of graft rejection after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) has attracted many surgeons towards this technique in keratoconus. This review aims to compare the visual, refractive and graft outcomes after penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and DALK for keratoconus.
METHODS: Electronic searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrial.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were performed. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) and comparative studies to assess primary and secondary outcomes after PK and DALK in eyes with keratoconus. Primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) LogMAR at ≥6 months. Secondary outcomes included number of patients with BCVA≥0 LogMAR, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) LogMAR, spherical equivalent (SE), refractive and keratometric astigmatism, endothelial cell density (ECD) cell/mm2, graft rejection and graft survival.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies (including 2 RCTs) compared DALK (965 eyes) and PK (2402 eyes) for keratoconus. There was strong evidence through RCTs suggesting better LogMAR BCVA at ≥6 months and better LogMAR UCVA with PK; reduced refractive astigmatism and rejection with DALK and no difference in SE and keratometric astigmatism. Moreover, there was weak evidence to suggest better BCVA≥0 LogMAR after PK and no difference in ECD between the two techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the popularity of DALK amongst corneal surgeons for keratoconus, there is a paucity of high quality RCTs. The existing limited evidence confirms reduced rejection and refractive astigmatism with DALK but better visual outcomes with PK. Internationally agreed data sets and follow-up protocol are warranted.
METHODS: Electronic searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrial.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were performed. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) and comparative studies to assess primary and secondary outcomes after PK and DALK in eyes with keratoconus. Primary outcome was best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) LogMAR at ≥6 months. Secondary outcomes included number of patients with BCVA≥0 LogMAR, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) LogMAR, spherical equivalent (SE), refractive and keratometric astigmatism, endothelial cell density (ECD) cell/mm2, graft rejection and graft survival.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies (including 2 RCTs) compared DALK (965 eyes) and PK (2402 eyes) for keratoconus. There was strong evidence through RCTs suggesting better LogMAR BCVA at ≥6 months and better LogMAR UCVA with PK; reduced refractive astigmatism and rejection with DALK and no difference in SE and keratometric astigmatism. Moreover, there was weak evidence to suggest better BCVA≥0 LogMAR after PK and no difference in ECD between the two techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the popularity of DALK amongst corneal surgeons for keratoconus, there is a paucity of high quality RCTs. The existing limited evidence confirms reduced rejection and refractive astigmatism with DALK but better visual outcomes with PK. Internationally agreed data sets and follow-up protocol are warranted.