Advertisement

The Penetrating Keratoplasty (PKP): A Century of Success

  • Berthold SeitzEmail author
  • Nora Szentmáry
  • Moatasem El-Husseiny
  • Arne Viestenz
  • Achim Langenbucher
  • Gottfried O. H. Naumann
Chapter

Abstract

Besides routine postoperative follow-up, the prophylaxis of complications in penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) includes special preoperative and intraoperative aspects. Preoperative prophylaxis consists of the therapy of systemic diseases and eyelid abnormalities, determining individual optimal graft size, avoiding PKP in cases of uncontrolled intraocular pressure, avoiding PKP in cases of acute corneal hydrops, pretreatment of vascularized cornea, amniotic membrane transplantation before PKP in cases of ulcerative keratitis, quality-controlled organ-cultured transplants, and preoperative counseling by the microsurgeon to ensure patient compliance. Intraoperative prophylaxis consists of controlled arterial hypotension and complete relaxation during general anesthesia and application of a Flieringa ring in aphakic vitrectomized eyes. Precautions for intraoperative prophylaxis of astigmatism must be followed. A measurable improvement seems to be possible using the technique of nonmechanical trephination of patient and donor from the epithelial side using the excimer laser but not the femtosecond laser. Graft size should be adjusted individually (“as large as possible, as small as necessary”). Limbal centration should be preferred over pupil centration (especially in keratoconus). In addition to the situation-specific diagnosis and preoperative planning, the critical selection of the donor tissue, and the minimally invasive microsurgical technique, it is especially the indication-dependent close-meshed follow-up which plays an important role in the long-term success of penetrating keratoplasty. In the follow-up process, the repeated emphatic sensitization of the patient to alarming subjective symptoms and the informed involvement of the ophthalmologist in private practice providing the follow-up treatment must be considered of crucial importance. “Treat them and street them” is certainly not the motto to follow!

Keywords

Corneal transplantation Penetrating keratoplasty Trephination technique Suture technique Astigmatism Immune reactions Complications Excimer laser Femtosecond laser Prophylaxis 

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Altenburger AE, Bachmann B, Seitz B, Cursiefen C. Morphometric analysis of postoperative corneal neovascularization after high-risk keratoplasty: herpetic versus non-herpetic disease. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;250:1663–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amigo G. The Maklakoff applanation tonometer. Aust J Optom. 1967;50:92–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahar I, Kaiserman I, Lange AP, Levinger E, Sansanayudh W, Singal N, Slomovic AR, Rootman DS. Femtosecond laser versus manual dissection for top hat penetrating keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:73–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behrens A, Seitz B, Küchle M, et al. “Orientation teeth” in nonmechanical laser corneal trephination: 2.94-microm Er:YAG laser vs. 193-nm ArF excimer laser. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:1008–12.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Behrens A, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, et al. Lens opacities after nonmechanical vs. mechanical corneal trephination for penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:1588–95.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Belmont SC, Troutman RC, Buzard KA. Control of astigmatism aided by intraoperative keratometry. Cornea. 1993;12:397–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Birnbaum F, Wiggermann A, Maier PC, Böhringer D, Reinhard T. Clinical results of 123 femtosecond laser-assisted keratoplasties. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:95–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Busin M. A new lamellar wound configuration for penetrating keratoplasty surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121:260–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chamberlain WD, Rush SW, Mathers WD, Cabezas M, Fraunfelder FW. Comparison of femtosecond laser-assisted keratoplasty versus conventional penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:486–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen KL, Tripoli NK, Pellom AC, Kupper LL, Fryczkowski AW. Effect of tissue fit on corneal shape after transplantation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1984;25:1226–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen KL, Holman RE, Tripoli NK, Kupper LL. Effect of trephine tilt on corneal button dimensions. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101:722–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Das S, Langenbucher A, Pogorelov P, et al. Long-term outcome of excimer laser phototherapeutic keratectomy for treatment of Salzmann’s nodular degeneration. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:1386–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Husseiny M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Akhmedova E, Szentmáry N, Tsintarakis T, Hager T, Janunts E. Excimer vs. femtosecond laser assisted penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus and Fuchs dystrophy – intraoperative pitfalls. J Ophthalmol. 2015, accepted.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farid M, Steiner RF, Gaster RN, Chamberlain W, Lin A. Comparison of penetrating keratoplasty performed with the femtosecond laser zig-zag incision versus conventional blade trephination. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(9):1638–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Filatov V, Alexandrakis G, Talamo JH, Steinert RF. Comparison of suture-in and suture-out postkeratoplasty astigmatism with single running suture or combined running and interrupted sutures. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:696–700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaster RN, Dumitrascu O, Rabinowitz YS. Penetrating keratoplasty using femtosecond laser-enabled keratoplasty with zig-zag incisions versus a mechanical trephine in patients with keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:1195–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graef S, Maier P, Boehringer D, Auw-Haedrich C, Reinhard T. Femtosecond laser-assisted repeat keratoplasty: a case series. Cornea. 2011;30:687–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoffmann F. Suture technique for perforating keratoplasty. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1976;169:584–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoffmann S, Szentmáry N, Seitz B. Amniotic membrane transplantation for the treatment of infectious ulcerative keratitis before elective penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2013;32:1321–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoppenreijs VPT, Van Rij G, Beekhuis WH, Rijneveld WJ, Rinkel-Van Driel E. Causes of high astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty. Doc Ophthalmol. 1993;85:21–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Javadi MA, Mohammadi MJ, Mirdehghan SA, Sajjadi SH. A comparison between donor-recipient corneal size and its effect on the ultimate refractive error induced in keratoconus. Cornea. 1993;12:401–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jonas JB, Budde WM. Loosening of single versus double running sutures in penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1999;237:522–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kamiya K, Kobashi H, Shimizu K, Igarashi A. Clinical outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty performed with the VisuMax femtosecond laser system and comparison with conventional penetrating keratoplasty. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e105464.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kirkness CM, Ficker LA. Risk factors for the development of postkeratoplasty glaucoma. Cornea. 1992;11:427–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koenig Y, Bock F, Kruse FE, et al. Angioregressive pretreatment of mature corneal blood vessels before keratoplasty: fine-needle vessel coagulation combined with anti-VEGFs. Cornea. 2012;31:887–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Küchle M, Nguyen NX, Seitz B, et al. Blood-aqueous barrier following mechanical or nonmechanical excimer laser trephination in penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:177–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Küchle M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH. Nonmechanical excimer laser penetrating keratoplasty for perforated or predescemetal corneal ulcers. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:2203–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lang GK, Schröder E, Koch JW, et al. Excimer laser keratoplasty. Part 2: elliptical keratoplasty. Ophthalmic Surg. 1989;86:342–6.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lang GK, Naumann GOH, Koch JW. A new elliptical excision for corneal transplantation using an excimer laser. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:914–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Langenbucher A, Seitz B, Kus MM, Vilchis E, Naumann GOH. Regularity of corneal topography after penetrating keratoplasty – comparison between nonmechanical (excimer laser 193 nm) and mechanical trephination. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1996;208:450–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Langenbucher A, Seitz B, Kus MM, Vilchis E, Naumann GOH. Graft decentration in penetrating keratoplasty – Nonmechanical trephination with the excimer laser (193 nm) versus the motor trephine. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1998;29:106–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Langenbucher A, Seitz B, Kus MM, Naumann GOH. Transplant vertical tilt after perforating keratoplasty – comparison between non-mechanical trephination with excimer laser and motor trephination. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1998;212:129–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Langenbucher A, Kus MM, Neumann J, Seitz B. Calculating the localization and dimension of the real pupil in keratoconus with ray tracing of corneal topography data. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1999;215:163–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Langenbucher A, Seitz B, Nguyen NX, Naumann GOH. Graft endothelial cell loss after nonmechanical penetrating keratoplasty depends on diagnosis: a regression analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2002;240:387–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Levinger E, Trivizki O, Levinger S, Kremer I. Outcome of “mushroom” pattern femtosecond laser-assisted keratoplasty versus conventional penetrating keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus. Cornea. 2014;33(5):481–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mader TH, Yuan R, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD, Wilson LA, Waring II GO. Change in keratometric astigmatism after suture removal more than one year after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:119–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Madjlessi F, Marx W, Reinhard T, et al. Impression and applanation tonometry in irregular corneas. Comparison with intraocular needle tonometry. Ophthalmologe. 2000;97:478–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mayer K, Reinhard T, Reis A, et al. Synergistic antiherpetic effect of acyclovir and mycophenolate mofetil following keratoplasty in patients with herpetic eye disease: first results of a randomised pilot study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003;241:1051–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Musch DC, Meyer RF, Sugar A. The effect of removing running sutures on astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:488–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Naumann GOH, Sautter H. Surgical procedures on the cornea. In: Blodi FC, Mackensen G, Neubauer H, editors. Surgical ophthalmology, vol. 1. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York/Tokyo: Springer; 1991. p. S433–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Naumann GOH, Seitz B, Lang GK, Langenbucher A, Kus MM. 193 excimer laser trepanation in perforating keratoplasty. Report of 70 patients. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1993;203:252–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Naumann GOH. Part II: Corneal transplantation in anterior segment diseases. The Bowman Lecture (Number 56) 1994. Eye. 1995;9:395–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ninios K, Matoula P, Szentmàry N, et al. Results of excimer laser penetrating keratoplasty in aphakic eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:1185–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nguyen NX, Seitz B, Martus P, et al. Long-term topical steroid treatment improves graft survival following normal-risk penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:318–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Olson RJ. Modulation of postkeratoplasty astigmatism by surgical and suturing techniques. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1983;23(4):137–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Perl T, Charlton KH, Binder PS. Disparate diameter grafting. Astigmatism, intraocular pressure and visual acuity. Ophthalmology. 1981;88:774–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Reinhard T, Böhringer D, Hüschen D, Sundmacher R. Chronic endothelial cell loss of the graft after penetrating keratoplasty: influence of endothelial cell migration from graft to host. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2002;219:410–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sauer R, Seitz B, Mardin C, et al. Impact of intracameral pressure on donor cut angles in nonmechanical Er:YAG laser trephination for penetrating keratoplasty. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2003;220:396–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Seitz B, Behrens A, Langenbucher A, Kus MM, Naumann GOH. Experimental 193-nm excimer laser trephination with divergent cut angles in penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 1998;17:410–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Fischer S, et al. Regularity of laser keratectomy depth in non-mechanical trephination for penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1998;29:33–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Kus MM, Küchle M, Naumann GOH. Nonmechanical corneal trephination with the excimer laser improves outcome after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1156–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH. Astigmatism in keratoplasty. In: Seiler T, editor. Refraktive Chirurgie. Stuttgart: Enke; 2000. p. 197–252.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Meiller R, Kus MM. Decentration of donor cornea in mechanical and excimer laser trephination for penetrating keratoplasty. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2000;217:144–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Zagrada D, Budde W, Kus MM. Corneal dimensions in various types of corneal dystrophies and their effect on penetrating keratoplasty. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2000;217:152–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Diamantis A, et al. Immunological graft reactions after penetrating keratoplasty – a prospective randomized trial comparing corneal excimer laser and motor trephination. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2001;218:710–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Nguyen NX, et al. Graft endothelium and thickness after penetrating keratoplasty comparing mechanical and excimer laser trephination – a prospective randomised study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001;239:12–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Nguyen NX, et al. Long-term follow-up of intraocular pressure after penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus and Fuchs’ dystrophy – comparison of mechanical and laser trephination. Cornea. 2002;21:368–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Küchle M, Naumann GOH. Impact of graft diameter on corneal power and the regularity of postkeratoplasty astigmatism before and after suture removal. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2162–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Seitz B, Rozsival P, Feuermannova A, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH. Penetrating keratoplasty for iatrogenic keratoconus after repeat myopic laser in situ keratomileusis: histologic findings and literature review. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:2217–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Nguyen NX, Kus MM, Küchle M, Naumann GOH. Results of the first 1000 consecutive elective nonmechanical keratoplasties with the excimer laser – a prospective study over more than 12 years. Ophthalmologe. 2004;101:478–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH. The penetrating keratoplasty – a 100-year success story. Ophthalmologe. 2005;102:1128–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Seitz B, Brünner H, Viestenz A, Hofmann-Rummelt C, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Naumann GOH, Langenbucher A. Inverse mushroom-shaped nonmechanical penetrating keratoplasty using a femtosecond laser. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139:941–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH. Trephination in penetrating keratoplasty. In: Reinhard T, Larkin F, editors. Essentials in ophthalmology – corneal and external eye disease. Berlin: Springer; 2006. p. 123–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Seitz B, Resch M, Schlötzer-Schrehardt U, Hofmann-Rummelt C, Sauer R, Kruse FE. Histopathology and ultrastructure of human corneas after amniotic membrane transplantation. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124:1487–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Seitz B, Heiligenhaus A. “Herpetic keratitis”. Various expressions require different therapeutic approaches. Ophthalmologe. 2011;108:385–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH. Perspectives of excimer laser-assisted keratoplasty. Ophthalmologe. 2011;108:817–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Seitz B, El-Husseiny M, Langenbucher A, Szentmáry N. Prophylaxis and management of complications in penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmologe. 2013;110:605–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Seitz B, Hager T, Szentmáry N, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH. Keratoplasty in children – still a dilemma. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2013;587:230–594.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Seitz B, Cursiefen C, El-Husseiny M, Viestenz A, Langenbucher A, Szentmáry N. DALK and penetrating laser keratoplasty for advanced keratoconus. Ophthalmologe. 2013;110:839–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Seitz B, Viestenz A, Käsmann-Kellner B. Stage-related therapy of congenital aniridia. Ophthalmologe. 2014;111(12):1164–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shehadeh-Mashor R, Chan CC, Bahar I, Lichtinger A, Yeung SN, Rootman DS. Comparison between femtosecond laser mushroom configuration and manual trephine straight-edge configuration deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(1):35–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Stavridis E, Gatzioufas Z, Hasenfus A, Sauter M, Smola S, Seitz B. Ping-pong transmission of herpes simplex virus 1 following corneal transplantation. Ophthalmologe. 2012;109:1017–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Szentmáry N, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH. Repeat keratoplasty for correction of high or irregular postkeratoplasty astigmatism in clear corneal grafts. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139:826830.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Szentmàry N, Langenbucher A, Naumann GOH, Seitz B. Intra-individual variability of penetrating keratoplasty outcome after excimer laser versus motorized corneal trephination. J Refract Surg. 2006;22:804–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Szentmáry N, Langenbucher A, Kus MM, et al. Elliptical nonmechanical corneal trephination: intraoperative complications and long-term outcome of 42 consecutive excimer laser penetrating keratoplasties. Cornea. 2007;26:414–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Szentmáry N, Langenbucher A, Kus MM, Naumann GOH, Seitz B. Long-term refractive results of elliptical excimer laser penetrating keratoplasty (EELPK). Curr Eye Res. 2007;32:953–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Szentmáry N, Goebels S, Bischoff M, Seitz B. Photodynamic therapy for infectious keratitis. Ophthalmologe. 2012;109:165–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Szentmáry N, Goebels S, Matoula P, et al. Acanthamoeba keratitis – a rare and often late diagnosed disease. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2012;229:521–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Szentmáry N, Goebels S, El-Husseiny M, et al. Immune reactions following excimer laser and femtosecond laser-assisted penetrating keratoplasty. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2013;230:486–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Urrets-Zavalia A. Fixed dilated pupil, iris atrophy and secondary glaucoma. A distinct clinical entity following penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1963;56:257–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Van Rij G, Cornell FM, Waring III GO, Wilson LA, Beekhuis H. Postoperative astigmatism after central vs eccentric penetrating keratoplasties. Am J Ophthalmol. 1985;99:317–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Van Rij G, Waring III GO. Configuration of corneal trephine opening using five different trephines in human donor eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:1228–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Vetter JM, Holzer MP, Teping C, et al. Intraocular pressure during corneal flap preparation: comparison among four femtosecond lasers in porcin eyes. J Refract Surg. 2011;27:427–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Liu Y, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Nguyen NX, Naumann GOH. Impact of preoperative corneal curvature on the outcome of penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus. Cornea. 2003;22:409–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zirm E. A successful total keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1906;64:580–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berthold Seitz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nora Szentmáry
    • 1
  • Moatasem El-Husseiny
    • 1
  • Arne Viestenz
    • 1
  • Achim Langenbucher
    • 2
  • Gottfried O. H. Naumann
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologySaarland University Medical Center UKSHomburg/SaarGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Experimental OphthalmologySaarland UniversityHomburg/SaarGermany
  3. 3.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations