MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)72251-2

Медицинская библиотека · American journal of ophthalmology · 1991

A comparison of penetrating keratoplasty to epikeratoplasty in the surgical management of keratoconus.

Goosey J D, Prager T C, Goosey C B, Bird E F, Sanderson J C

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

Of 40 patients intolerant to contact lenses, 47 eyes with keratoconus were surgically corrected with either epikeratoplasty (N = 31) or penetrating keratoplasty (N = 16). The percentage of eyes in both groups that had visual acuity of 20/40 or better with contact lenses at one year were equal (14 of 15 eyes [93.3%] in the penetrating keratoplasty group; 27 of 29 eyes [93.1%] in the epikeratoplasty group); however, the penetrating keratoplasty procedure resulted in a higher percentage of eyes that had visual acuity of 20/20 than the epikeratoplasty group (11 of 15 eyes [73%] compared with seven of 29 eyes [24.1%], respectively). Both procedures resulted in significant corneal flattening, with the penetrating keratoplasty group producing an average of 3 diopters more keratometric reduction than the epikeratoplasty group one year postoperatively. Although no irreversible graft failures occurred, five of 16 eyes (31%) in the penetrating keratoplasty group had graft reactions. No serious complications were noted in the eyes of the epikeratoplasty group. Both procedures were effective in the surgical management of keratoconus.

Для цитирования: Goosey J D, Prager T C, Goosey C B, Bird E F, Sanderson J C. A comparison of penetrating keratoplasty to epikeratoplasty in the surgical management of keratoconus.. American journal of ophthalmology. 1991. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)72251-2.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.