Middle East African journal of ophthalmology · 2023
Comparison of Glaucoma Therapy Escalation After Penetrating Keratoplasty to Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty for the Treatment of Pseudophakic Bullous Keratopathy: A Cohort Study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Aldarrab Abdulrahman, Alsakran Wael, Al-Swailem Samar A, Al-Shahwan Sami A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare glaucoma therapy escalation (GTE), graft survival, vision, and glaucoma following penetrating keratoplasty (PK group) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK group) to treat pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).
METHODS: This cohort included cases of PBK managed with PK from 2009 to 2014. We compared the incidences and determinants of GTE, graft survival, and visual disability. P < 0.05 was statistically significant.
RESULTS: There were 58 eyes in the PK group and 117 eyes in the DSAEK group. The incidence of GTE in the PK and DSAEK groups at the last follow-up was 34.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.5-48.9) and 46.6% (95% CI: 27.7-65.4), respectively. The risk of GTE was similar between the groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.36 [95% CI: 0.94-1.98], P = 0.12). GTE was significantly associated with graft survival in the PK group (RR = 3.25 [95% CI: 1.5-7.0], P < 0.001) and the DSAEK group (RR = 3.77 [95% CI: 2.6-5.6], P < 0.001). Glaucoma (P = 0.001) and previous keratoplasty (P < 0.001) were significant predictors for GTE. At the final follow-up visit, severe visual disability was not significantly different between the groups (RR = 0.9 [95% CI: 0.3-2.9], P = 0.88). There was a statistically significant improvement in vision after DSAEK (P < 0.001) but not after PK (P = 0.67).
CONCLUSION: GTE was similar in eyes with PBK managed by PK or DSAEK. Glaucoma and previous keratoplasty were predictors of GTE post-keratoplasty. DSAEK gave better visual outcomes than PK for managing PBK.
METHODS: This cohort included cases of PBK managed with PK from 2009 to 2014. We compared the incidences and determinants of GTE, graft survival, and visual disability. P < 0.05 was statistically significant.
RESULTS: There were 58 eyes in the PK group and 117 eyes in the DSAEK group. The incidence of GTE in the PK and DSAEK groups at the last follow-up was 34.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.5-48.9) and 46.6% (95% CI: 27.7-65.4), respectively. The risk of GTE was similar between the groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.36 [95% CI: 0.94-1.98], P = 0.12). GTE was significantly associated with graft survival in the PK group (RR = 3.25 [95% CI: 1.5-7.0], P < 0.001) and the DSAEK group (RR = 3.77 [95% CI: 2.6-5.6], P < 0.001). Glaucoma (P = 0.001) and previous keratoplasty (P < 0.001) were significant predictors for GTE. At the final follow-up visit, severe visual disability was not significantly different between the groups (RR = 0.9 [95% CI: 0.3-2.9], P = 0.88). There was a statistically significant improvement in vision after DSAEK (P < 0.001) but not after PK (P = 0.67).
CONCLUSION: GTE was similar in eyes with PBK managed by PK or DSAEK. Glaucoma and previous keratoplasty were predictors of GTE post-keratoplasty. DSAEK gave better visual outcomes than PK for managing PBK.