Comparison of Penetrating Keratoplasty and Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty Post-Operative Results among Keratoconus Patients
Journal of Ophthalmic and Optometric Sciences,
Vol. 6 No. 4 (2022),
16 March 2024
,
Page 13-20
Abstract
Purpose: To compare post-operative results among keratoconus patients undergoing penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in comparison with deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) and to study the risk factors for transplant rejection.
Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, the records of all keratoconus patients referred to Labbafinejad Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran, who underwent penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) from 2006 to 2016, were investigated. For all patients entering the study information related to surgical corneal transplantation techniques, post-operative follow-up and post-operative results were recorded.
Results: In total the records of 216 patients (106 in the PKP and 110 in the DALK group) were included. The rate of graft rejection was 13 % and 34.3 % in DALK and PKP groups respectively (P <0.001). The graft failure rate was 7.8 % in DALK and 2.4 % in PKP group (P = 0.12). No statistically significant difference in post- operation BCVA or the number of patients with astigmatism of more than 4 diopters was observed when comparing the study groups. The higher age of patients at the time of transplant, the presence of post-surgical vascularization, and interface complications were correlated with a higher chance of transplant rejection.
Conclusion: The rate of graft rejection is significantly higher after PKP than DALK among keratoconus patients undergoing corneal transplant. The higher age of patients at the time of transplant, the presence of post-surgical corneal vascularization and interface complications were the observed risk factors for graft failure in both groups.
- Corneal Transplant
- Keratoconus
- Penetrating Keratoplasty
- Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty
- Surgical Results
How to Cite
References
Ziaei H, Jafarinasab MR, Javadi MA, Karimian F, Poorsalman H, Mahdavi M, et al. Epidemiology of keratoconus in an Iranian population. Cornea. 2012;31(9):1044-7.
Ridley F. Contact lenses in treatment of keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. 1956;40(5):295-304.
Razmju H, Shams M, Abtahi MA, Abtahi SH. Comparison of Deep Lamellar Keratoplasty and Penetrating Keratoplasty in Patients with Keratoconus: A Clinical Trial Study. Journal of Isfahan Medical School. 2011; 29:798-803.
Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol.1998;42(4):297-319.
Romero-Jiménez M, Santodomingo-Rubido J, Wolffsohn JS. Keratoconus: a review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010;33(4):157-66.
Tuft SJ, Gregory WM, Davison CR. Bilateral penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 1995;102(3): 462-8.
Sugar A, Sugar J. Techniques in penetrating keratoplasty: a quarter century of development. Cornea. 2000;19(5): 603-10.
Zare, M. Javadi MA, Einolahi B, Baradaran-Rafie AR, Azimzadeh-Arani A, Esfandiari H. Indications for Corneal Transplantation at Labbafinejad Medical Center. Bina J Ophthalmol. 2011; 16 (4): 306-11.
Panda A, Bageshwar LM, Ray M, Singh JP, Kumar A. Deep lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for corneal lesions. Cornea. 1999;18(2):172-5.
Banerjee S, Dick AD. Recent developments in the pharmacological treatment and prevention of corneal graft rejection. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2003;12(1):29-37.
Dahigren MA, Krachmer JH: Rejection: Clinical forms, Diagnosis and Treatment in Brightbill F (ed): Corneal Surgery, Theory, Technique and Tissues. St Louis, CV Mosby Company, 4th ed, 2009. 537-44.
Maumenee AE. The influence of donor-recipient sensitization on corneal grafts. Am J Ophthalmol. 1951;34(5 2):142-52.
Khodadoust AA, Silverstein AM. Transplantation and rejection of individual cell layers of the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol. 1969;8(2):180-95.
Stulting RD, Sugar A, Beck R, Belin M, Dontchev M, Feder RS, et al. Effect of donor and recipient factors on corneal graft rejection. Cornea. 2012;31(10):1141-7.
Bodaghlu R, Kheiri S, Sedehi M, Akhoond MR. Investigate Factors Affecting Corneal Graft Rejection in Keratoconus Using Bayesian Analysis of Bivariate Weibull Hazard Function Based on Clayton Copula. J Health Syst Res. 2014;10(4): 795-805.
Kelly TL, Williams KA, Coster DJ; Australian Corneal Graft Registry. Corneal transplantation for keratoconus: a registry study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(6):691-7.
Allan BD, Terry MA, Price FW Jr, Price MO, Griffin NB, Claesson M. Corneal transplant rejection rate and severity after endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2007;26(9):1039-42.
Guilbert E, Bullet J, Sandali O, Basli E, Laroche L, Borderie VM. Long-term rejection incidence and reversibility after penetrating and lamellar keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;155(3):560-9.
Niederkorn JY. Immunology and immunomodulation of corneal transplantation. Int Rev Immunol. 2002;21(2-3):173-96.
Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW Jr. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(3):536-40.
Jonas JB, Rank RM, Budde WM. Immunologic graft reactions after allogenic penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133(4):437-43.
Shoja MR, Besharati MR. Indications and outcome of penetrating keratoplasty in Yazd. The journal of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences. 2006;10(2):74-81.
Trimarchi F, Poppi E, Klersy C, Piacentini C. Deep lamellar keratoplasty. Ophthalmologica. 2001;215(6):389-93.
Karimian F, Feizi S. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty: indications, surgical techniques and complications. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2010;17(1):28–37.
Sugita J, Kondo J. Deep lamellar keratoplasty with complete removal of pathological stroma for visionimprovement. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;81(3):184-8.
Claerhout I, Beele H, De Bacquer D, Kestelyn P. Factors influencing the decline in endothelial cell density after corneal allograft rejection. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44(11):4747-52.
Jhanji V, Sharma N, Vajpayee RB. Management of keratoconus: current scenario. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95(8): 1044-50.
Spadea L, De Rosa V. Current techniques of lamellar keratoplasty for keratoconus. Saudi Med J. 2016;37(2):127-36.
Javadi MA, Feizi S, Yazdani S, Mirbabaee F. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: a clinical trial. Cornea. 2010;29(4):365-71.
Cohen AW, Goins KM, Sutphin JE, Wandling GR, Wagoner MD. Penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for the treatment of keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol. 2010;30(6):675-81.
Epstein AJ, de Castro TN, Laibson PR, Cohen EJ, Rapuano CJ. Risk factors for the first episode of corneal graft rejection in keratoconus. Cornea. 2006;25(9):1005-11.
Inoue K1, Amano S, Oshika T, Tsuru T. Risk factors for corneal graft failure and rejection in penetrating keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2001;79(3):251-5.
Borderie VM, Guilbert E, Touzeau O, Laroche L. Graft rejection and graft failure after anterior lamellar versus penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151(6):1024-9.
Fallahi Motlagh B, Sedghipoor MR, Abroon GR, Lotfi Sadigh A. Outcomes of Penetrating Keratoplasty and Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty for Keratoconus in a University Teaching Hospital. Iranian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2012;24(2):52-6.
Rahimzadeh M, Hajizadeh E, Feizi S. Cure rate following rejection in bilateral corneal grafts for keratoconus. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2010;5(3):145-50.
Hos D, Le VNH, Hellmich M, Siebelmann S, Roters S, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C. Risk of Corneal Graft Rejection After High-risk Keratoplasty Following Fine-needle Vessel Coagulation of Corneal Neovascularization Combined With Bevacizumab: A Pilot Study. Transplant Direct. 2019;5(5):e452.
Bachmann B, Taylor RS, Cursiefen C. Corneal neovascularization as a risk factor for graft failure and rejection after keratoplasty: an evidence-based meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(7):1300-5.e7.
Sellami D, Abid S, Bouaouaja G, Ben Amor S, Kammoun B, Masmoudi M, Dabbeche K, Boumoud H, Ben Zina Z, Feki J. Epidemiology and risk factors for corneal graft rejection. Transplant Proc. 2007;39(8):2609-11.
- Abstract Viewed: 39 times
- pdf Downloaded: 51 times
