Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of refractive outcomes in three corneal transplantation techniques for keratoconus

  • Cornea
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) has a much lower incidence of immunologic reactions than penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for patients with keratoconus. However, it is unclear whether DALK is better on refractive outcomes than PK, due to its high postoperative myopia.

Methods

We retrospectively studied the clinical records of keratoconus patients who underwent PK, DALK, or predescemetic DALK (pre-DALK, DALK with residual stroma) between June 2004 and September 2008. The main outcome measures included refractive sphere, manifest cylinder, corneal power, keratometric astigmatism, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at the latest visit and the methods of visual correction. Postoperative manifest refractions and topography data were compared at postoperative 3, 5, 7, and 9 years among the three groups. Additionally, the final BCVA and the methods of vision correction were compared.

Results

A total of 172 subjects (172 eyes) screened out of 207 keratoconus patients underwent PK (79 eyes), DALK (68 eyes), or pre-DALK (25 eyes). Postoperative myopic refractive sphere increased in all groups, but the most obvious increase was noted in the pre-DALK group. At the 9-year follow-up, both the pre-DALK group (−6.5 ± 1.7 D) and DALK group (−6.1 ± 1.8 D) had higher myopic refractive sphere than the PK group (−5.0 ± 1.5 D, p < 0.05). Postoperative myopic manifest astigmatism progressively increased in 5 years, but there were no differences among the groups. The progressive increases in postoperative corneal power were recorded in all groups, with the highest one in the pre-DALK group and the lowest in the PK group. At the 9-year follow-up, both the pre-DALK (49.8 ± 2.7 D) and DALK (48.8 ± 2.1 D) groups had higher corneal power than the PK group (47.3 ± 2.0 D); meanwhile, the corneal power was higher in the pre-DALK group than the DALK group (p < 0.05). No differences were noted with respect to keratometric astigmatism among the groups. Mean LogMAR BCVA was 0.12 ± 0.12 in the DALK group, 0.17 ± 0.10 in the pre-DALK group, and 0.1 ± 0.11 in the PK group (p = 0.325) at 9 years after surgery. Moreover, the methods of achieving BCVA seem to be similar among the treatment groups.

Conclusions

Although DALK has a slightly higher degree of myopic refraction than PK, DALK and PK have comparable visual acuity outcomes and similar methods of vision correction. DALK is recommended for the treatment of keratoconus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zadnik K, Barr JT, Edrington TB et al (1998) Baseline findings in the Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 39:2537–6

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pramanik S, Musch DC, Sutphin JE et al (2006) Extended long-term outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Ophthalmology 113:1633–1638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bahar I, Kaiserman I, Srinivasan S et al (2008) Comparison of three different techniques of corneal trabsplantation for keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 146:905–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jaycock PD, Jones MN, Males J et al (2008) Outcomes of same-sizing versus oversizing donor trephines in keratoconic patients undergoing first penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 115:268–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Javadi MA, Feizi S, Yazdani S et al (2010) Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: a clinical trial. Cornea 29:365–371

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fontana L, Parente G, Tassinari G (2007) Clinical outcomes after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty using the big-bubble technique in patients with keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 143:117–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Feizi S, Javadi M, Kanavi MR (2012) Recurrent keratoconus in a corneal graft after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. J Ophthalmol Vis Res 7:328–331

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kim KH, Choi SH, Ahn K et al (2011) Comparison of refractive changes after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Jpn J Ophthalmol 55:93–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Watson SL, Ramsay A, Dart JK et al (2004) Comparison of deep lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus. Ophthalmology 111:1676–1682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang T, Zhang X, Wang Y et al (2012) Outcomes of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty using the big-bubble technique in various corneal diseases. Am J Ophthalmol 154:282–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vail A, Gore SM, Bradley BA et al (1996) Clinical and surgical factors infliencing corneal graft survival, visual acuity, and astigmatism. Corneal transplant follow-up study collaborators. Ophthalmology 103:41–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Busin M, Mönks T, al-Nawaiseh I (1998) Different suturing techniques variously affect the regularity of postkeratoplasty astigmatism. Ophthalmology 105:1200–1205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kagaya F, Tomidokoro A, Tanaka S et al (2002) Fourier series harmonic analysis of corneal topography following suture removal after penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea 21:256–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Javadi MA, Feizi S, Rastegarpour A (2011) Effect of vitreous length and trephine size disparity on post-DALK refractive status. Cornea 30:419–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Skeens HM, Holland EJ (2010) Large-diameter penetrating keratoplasty: indications and outcomes. Cornea 29:296–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patal SV, Malta JB, Banitt MR et al (2009) Recurrent ectasia in corneal grafts and outcomes of repeat keratoplasty for keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol 93:191–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. de Toledo JA, de la Paz MF, Barraquer RI, Barraquer J (2003) Long-term progression of astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: evidence of late recurrence. Cornea 22:317–323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Han DC, Mehta JS, Por YM et al (2009) Comparison of outcomes of lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 148:744–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng YY, Visser N, Schouten JS et al (2011) Endothelial cell loss and visual outcome of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty: a randomized multicenter clinical trial. Ophthalmology 118:302–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bourges JL, Savoldelli, Dighiero P et al (2003) Recurrence of keratoconus characteristics: a clinical and histologic follow-up analysis of donor grafts. Ophthalmology 110:1920–1925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Szczotka-Flynn L, McMahon TT, Lass JH et al (2004) Late-stage progressive corneal astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Eye Contact Lens 30:105–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kremer I, Eagle RC, Rapuano CJ, Laibson PR (1995) Histologic evidence of recurrent keratoconus seven years after keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 119:511–512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bechrakis N, Blom ML, Stark WJ, Green WR (1994) Recurrent keratoconus. Cornea 13:73–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Abelson MB, Collin HB, Gillette TE, Dohlman CH (1980) Recurrent keratoconus after keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 90:672–676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Edwards M, Mcghee CN, Dean S (2001) The genetics of keratoconus. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 29:345–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Publication of this article was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (NO.81371065). The roles of funding organization included data collection and analysis. None of the authors have any financial interests to disclose. Involved in design and conduct of the study (T.H.); collection (T.H., Y.H., M.G., C.H., H.Z.); management (T.H.); analysis (T.H., Y.H.); interpretation of the data (T.H., M.G., C.H.); preparation of the manuscript (T.H., Y.H., C.H.); review (T.H., Y.H., H.Z.); and approval of the manuscript (T.H., Y.H., M.G., C.H., H.Z.). The corresponding author Ting Huang has full access to all the data in the study, and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center (Guangzhou, China) and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Financial support

Natural Science Foundation of China (NO.81371065)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China

    Ting Huang, Yunwei Hu, Mengru Gui, Chao Hou & Hong Zhang

Authors
  1. Ting Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yunwei Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mengru Gui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chao Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ting Huang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, T., Hu, Y., Gui, M. et al. Comparison of refractive outcomes in three corneal transplantation techniques for keratoconus. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253, 1947–1953 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3091-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3091-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation