Sánchez-Cornejo M, Muñoz-Ibarra P, Razo-Blanco-Hernández DM, Lima-Gómez V, Albores-Montes O, Mendioza-Contreras JR, Rojas DJA

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 117-121
PDF size: 561.73 Kb.

ABSTRACT

lntroduction. Corneal transplant is the most common allograft; its success rate depends on the preexisting corneal disease. The incidence of graft rejection in patients who underwent penetrating keratoplasty, according to the prognosis related group, in order to estimate the effect of interventions aimed at improving surgical results. Materiasl and methods. An observational, retrospective, longitudinal, analytic and open study was conducted in a general Hospital from Mexico City January 2003 and November 2006; we included eyes that hada penetrating keratoplasty with any preoperative diagnosis, with one year follow up, any gender or age, and assigned them to one of the four prognosis groups. The rejection incidence was identified, as well as the rate of rejection without involution at the end of follow up for each group; the analysis was done with rates and 95% confidence intervals. Results. 102 eyes of patients aged 4 90 years (mean 43.4 S. D. ± 2 1.50) 38 of group 1, 49 of group 2, 9 of group 3 and 6 of group 4. 23 eyes had a preoperative diagnosis of graft rejection (22.5%), 51 eyes hada rejection (50%), which did not disappear after one year in 28 eyes (27.5%). The incidence was 55.2% for group 1, 44.8% for 2, 44.4% for 3 and 66.7% for 4. A preoperative history of rejection did not change the incidence. Discussion. The rejection rate was high in the groups considered to have with better prognosis. Although most of the rejections reverted, the conditions that lead to this highly unexpected incidence should be identified.

REFERENCES

1. Saunders PPR, Sibley LM, Richards JSF, Holland SP, Chow DL, Courtright P. Outcome of corneal tansplantation: can a priorisation system predict outcome? Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86: 57-61.

2. Laibson PR, Rapuano CJ . 100 yea rs rev iew of cornea. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 517-528.

3. Shimmura S. Component Surgery of the Cornea. Cornea 2004; 23(Suppl. 8): 531-535.

4. Niederkom JY. The immune privilege of comeal allografts. Transplantation 1999; 67: 1503-8.

5. Brad ley BA. Does the risk of acute rejection rea lly decrease with increasing recipient age?Transp lnt 2000; 13(Suppl. 1): S42-S44.

6. Peña Rj l , Redel Sj, Payahuela DN, Echevarria CS. Trasplante de cómea: perfil epidemiológico y resultados en 9 años de experiencia. CIMEL 2005; 10: 14-21.

7. Arentsen JJ, Margan B, Creen WR. Changing indicat ions for keratoplasty. Amj Ophthalmol 1976; 81:313-18.

8. Paton D. Penetrating keratoplasty. In: Symposium on Medical and Surgical Diseases of the Cornea. Transadions of the New Orleans Academy of Ophthalmology. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1980, p. 198.

9. Taylor DM, Atlas BF, Romanchuk KG, Stem AL. Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Ophthalmology 1983; 90: 19-24.

10. Guzman JKL, Beauregard EAM, Ballesteros TF. Frecuencia de las patologías relacionadas con rechazo a trasplante de cómea en pacientes con queratoplastia penetrante. Rev Mex Ofta lmol 2006; 80: 325-9.

11. Tan D, janardhanan P, Zhou H, et al. Penetrating Keratoplasty in Asian eyes. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 975-82.

12. Vai 1 A, Gore AM, Brad ley BA, Easty DL, Rogers CA. Corneal transplantation in the United Kingdom and Republic of lreland. Br J Ophthalmol 1993; 77: 650-6.

13. Dorrepaal Sj, Cao KY, Slomovic AR. lndications forpenetrat ing keratoplasty in a tert iary referral centre in Canada 1996-2004. Can J Ophthalmol 2007; 42: 244-50.

14. Crespi FVG, Reimer DHL, Silvestre CR. lndica<;óes para ceratoplastia penetrante no Hospital das Clínicas-UNICAMP. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2007; 70: 505-8.

15. Bahar 1, Kaiserrnan, McAIIum P, Slomovic A, Rootman D. Comparison of posterior lamellar keratop lasty techn iques to penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2008; in press