medigraphic.com
Anales de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología y Archivos de la Asociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México

2005, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2005; 79 (5)

Results of corneal transplantation in patients with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy.

Valdez-García JE, Morales-Lozano BJ, González-González LA, Madero-Frech A, Quintanilla-Dieck MJ

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 242-244
PDF size: 34.08 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the results of corneal transplantation for pseudophakic bullous keratopathy; to analyze the possible variables that could affect the final result.
Material and method: We performed a case series study. We included 19 patients (20 eyes) who were treated with penetrating keratoplasty for bullous keratopathy. Surgery was performed with same technique and same surgeon (JEVG) in a 4-year period (January 2000 – June 2004).
Results: The average age at the diagnosis of bullous keratopathy was 62 years; the mean follow-up period was 44 months; the average interval between cataract extraction and the diagnosis of bullous keratopathy was 24 months; the average interval between the diagnosis of bullous keratopathy and penetrating keratoplasty was 20 months. The corneal graft remained clear in 70% of cases. The post surgical visual acuities were 20/40 or better in 10% of cases, from 20/50 to 20/100 in 55%, and 20/200 or worse in 25%. Forty percent of cases had cystoid macular edema, with a visual acuity of 20/50 or worse.
Conclusions: Although penetrating keratoplasty is nowadays the only solution for pseudophakic bullous keratopathy its results are not the expected. Mainly, for the diversity of factors that might influence the final result.


REFERENCES

  1. Sugar A. An analisis of corneal endotelial and graft survival in pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1989; 87:762-801.

  2. 2. Reinhard T, Bohringer D, Huschen D, Sundmacher R. Chronic endothelial cell loss of the graft after penetraing keratoplasty: influence of endothelial cell migration from graft to host. Klin Noatsbl Augenheilkd 2002; 219(6):410-6.

  3. 3. Agrawal V, Vagh MM, Sangwan V, Rao GN. Penetrating keratoplasty for pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Indian J Ophthalmol 1994; 42(2):75-80.

  4. 4. van der Schaft TL, van Rij G, Renardel de Lavalette JG, Beekhuis WH. Results of penetrating keratoplasty for pseudophakic bullous keratopathy with the exchange of an intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol 1989; 73(9): 704-8.

  5. 5. Kornmehl EW, Steinert RF, Odrich MG, Stevens JB. Penetrating keratoplasty for pseudophakic bullous keratopathy associated with closed loop anterior chamber intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 1990; 97(4):407-12; discussion 413-4.

  6. 6. Muller M, Meyer HJ, Meyer C. Keratoplasty of pseudophakic eyes with posterior chamber lenses in Fuchs’ dystrophy and secondary bullous keratopathy. Long-term outcome. Ophtalmologe 1997; 94(4):282-4.

  7. 7. Schraepen P, Koppen C, Tassingon MJ. Visual acuity after penetrating keratoplasty for pseudophakic and aphakic bullous keratopathy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29(3):482-6.

  8. 8. Balazs E, Balazs K, Modis L Jr, Berta A. Penetrating keratoplasty for pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Acta Chir Hung 1997; 36(1-4):11-3.

  9. 9. Meyer HJ, Labjuhn S. Keratoplasty and donor age distribution. Klin Monatsbl Augenkeilkd 1999; 214(6):367-71.

  10. 10. Allouch C, Borderie V, Touzeau O, Scheer S, Nordmann JP, Laroche L. Incidence and factors influencing glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty. J Fr Ophtalmol 2003; 26(6):553-61.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com