Skip to main content


Log in

Long-term visual outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty for Peters anomaly

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



To investigate the long-term results and visual outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) in Peters anomaly.


Twenty-three eyes from 22 patients with Peters anomaly who underwent PKP from 1998 to 2008 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients who were followed for more than 3 years after the first PKP were included in this study. The systemic and ophthalmic features of the recipients were assessed, and the various prognostic factors for graft survival were evaluated. Disease severity was determined according to other accompanying eye anomalies in mild or severe form. The final visual outcomes were presented with respect to graft clarity.


Among the 22 patients, 14 patients had unilateral disease, and eight patients had bilateral disease. Associated systemic anomalies were observed in six patients. The mean age at the first PKP was 42.4 months. Nineteen eyes (83 %) underwent PKP after 12 months of age. The graft failure rates at 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years after PKP were 30 %, 39 %, 70 %, and 77 % respectively. Graft rejection within 1 month after PKP and severe disease were significant risk factors for graft failure. The mean final VAs in the clear-graft group and the failed-graft group were 1.883 logMAR and 2.767 logMAR (P < 0.001).


The results of delayed PKP in Peters anomaly were not inferior compared to the results of PKP performed at an earlier period in previous studies. If other congenital ophthalmic anomalies were present or graft rejection occurred within 1 month after PKP, the chance of graft failure was significantly increased.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Nakanishi I, Brown SI (1971) The histopathology and ultrastructure of congenital, central corneal opacity (Peters’ anomaly). Am J Ophthalmol 72:801–812

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Waring GO 3rd, Rodrigues MM, Laibson PR (1975) Anterior chamber cleavage syndrome. A stepladder classification. Surv Ophthalmol 20:3–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kenyon KR (1975) Mesenchymal dysgenesis in Peter’s anomaly, sclerocornea and congenital endothelial dystrophy. Exp Eye Res 21:125–142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stone DL, Kenyon KR, Green WR, Ryan SJ (1976) Congenital central corneal leukoma (Peters’ anomaly). Am J Ophthalmol 81:173–193

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Reese AB, Ellsworth RM (1966) The anterior chamber cleavage syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol 75:307–318

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Townsend WM, Font RL, Zimmerman LE (1974) Congenital corneal leukomas. 2. Histopathologic findings in 19 eyes with central defect in Descemet’s membrane. Am J Ophthalmol 77:192–206

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Huang C, O'Hara M, Mannis MJ (2009) Primary pediatric keratoplasty: indications and outcomes. Cornea 28:1003–1008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rao KV, Fernandes M, Gangopadhyay N, Vemuganti GK, Krishnaiah S, Sangwan VS (2008) Outcome of penetrating keratoplasty for Peters anomaly. Cornea 27:749–753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang LL, Lambert SR, Drews-Botsch C, Stulting RD (2009) Long-term visual outcome of penetrating keratoplasty in infants and children with Peters anomaly. J AAPOS 13:175–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yang LL, Lambert SR, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD (1999) Long-term results of corneal graft survival in infants and children with peters anomaly. Ophthalmology 106:833–848

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zaidman GW, Flanagan JK, Furey CC (2007) Long-term visual prognosis in children after corneal transplant surgery for Peters anomaly type I. Am J Ophthalmol 144:104–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen L, Bach M (2006) Visual acuities “hand motion” and “counting fingers” can be quantified with the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:1236–1240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aasuri MK, Garg P, Gokhle N, Gupta S (2000) Penetrating keratoplasty in children. Cornea 19:140–144

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dana MR, Moyes AL, Gomes JA, Rosheim KM, Schaumberg DA, Laibson PR, Holland EJ, Sugar A, Sugar J (1995) The indications for and outcome in pediatric keratoplasty. A multicenter study. Ophthalmology 102:1129–1138

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Patel HY, Ormonde S, Brookes NH, Moffatt LS, McGhee CN (2005) The indications and outcome of paediatric corneal transplantation in New Zealand: 1991–2003. Br J Ophthalmol 89:404–408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cowden JW (1990) Penetrating keratoplasty in infants and children. Ophthalmology 97:324–329

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Stulting RD, Sumers KD, Cavanagh HD, Waring GO, Gammon JA (1984) Penetrating keratoplasty in children. Ophthalmology 91:1222–1230

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Najjar DM, Christiansen SP, Bothun ED, Summers CG (2006) Strabismus and amblyopia in bilateral Peters anomaly. J AAPOS 10:193–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study received no financial support or funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young Suk Yu.

Additional information

The authors do not have any proprietary interests or conflict of interest with respect to any equipment or products mentioned in the article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, J.W., Kim, M.K., Kim, J.H. et al. Long-term visual outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty for Peters anomaly. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251, 953–958 (2013).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: