Advertisement

National Corneal Transplant Registries

  • W. John ArmitageEmail author
  • Margareta Claesson
Chapter

Abstract

National corneal transplant registries collect and analyze observational, longitudinal data and report outcomes on large numbers of patients across multiple transplant centres. Registry data are valuable for monitoring activity and outcomes, including rare events such as primary graft failure, and for showing the uptake of new surgical techniques. While randomized controlled trials (RCT) are considered to provide the highest level of evidence for comparative studies, the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria make generalization of the results and translation into routine practice at times uncertain. The greater heterogeneity of patient characteristics in registries provides a perhaps more realistic picture of expected outcomes. The same is true of carefully conducted single-centre case series, which can often provide benchmark data, but do not necessarily reflect the outcomes in routine practice in multiple centres. National registries provide an important source of information that contributes, along with RCTs, single-centre studies, expert opinion and meta-analyses, to a better understanding of corneal transplant outcomes.

Keywords

Corneal transplant registries Corneal transplant outcomes Corneal transplantation Transplant outcomes Registry data 

References

  1. 1.
    Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armitage WJ, Jones MN, Zambrano I, Carley F, Tole DM. The suitability of corneas stored by organ culture for penetrating keratoplasty and influence of donor and recipient factors on 5-year graft survival. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:784–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Behndig A, Montan P, Stenevi U, Kugelberg M, Lundstrom M. One million cataract surgeries: Swedish National Cataract Register 1992–2009. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:1539–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Claesson M, Armitage WJ. Ten-year follow-up of graft survival and visual outcome after penetrating keratoplasty in Sweden. Cornea. 2009;28:1124–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Claesson M, Armitage WJ. Clinical outcome of repeat penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2013;32:1026–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claesson M, Armitage WJ, Fagerholm P, Stenevi U. Visual outcome in corneal grafts: a preliminary analysis of the Swedish Corneal Transplant Register. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:174–80.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coster DJ, Lowe MT, Keane MC, Williams KA, Australian Corneal Graft Registry C. A comparison of lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty outcomes: a registry study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:979–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coster DJ, Williams KA. The impact of corneal allograft rejection on the long-term outcome of corneal transplantation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:1112–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gal RL, Dontchev M, Beck RW, Mannis MJ, Holland EJ, Kollman C, Dunn SP, Heck EL, Lass JH, Montoya MM, Schultze RL, Stulting RD, Sugar A, Sugar J, Tennant B, Verdier DD. The effect of donor age on corneal transplantation outcome results of the cornea donor study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:620–6.e6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodfellow JF, Nabili S, Jones MN, Nguyen DQ, Armitage WJ, Cook SD, Tole DM. Antiviral treatment following penetrating keratoplasty for herpetic keratitis. Eye. 2011;25:470–4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ham L, Dapena I, Van Luijk C, Van der Wees J, Melles GR. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy: review of the first 50 consecutive cases. Eye. 2009;23:1990–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones MN, Armitage WJ, Ayliffe W, Larkin DF, Kaye SB. Penetrating and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for keratoconus: a comparison of graft outcomes in the United kingdom. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:5625–9.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lundstrom M, Pesudovs K. Catquest-9SF patient outcomes questionnaire: nine-item short-form Rasch-scaled revision of the Catquest questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35:504–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lundstrom M, Stenevi U. Analyzing patient-reported outcomes to improve cataract care. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:754–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melles GR, Remeijer L, Geerards AJ, Beekhuis WH. The future of lamellar keratoplasty. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1999;10:253–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nanavaty MA, Wang X, Shortt AJ. Endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(2):CD008420.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patel SV, Armitage WJ, Claesson M. Keratoplasty outcomes: are we making advances? Ophthalmology. 2014;121:977–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1907–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Price MO, Fairchild KM, Price DA, Price Jr FW. Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty five-year graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:725–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ross AH, Jones MN, Nguyen DQ, Jaycock PD, Armitage WJ, Cook SD, Kaye SB, Tole DM. Long-term topical steroid treatment after penetrating keratoplasty in patients with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:2369–72.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sugar A, Gal RL, Beck W, Ruedy KJ, Blanton CL, Feder RS, Hardten DR, Holland EJ, Lass JH, Mannis MJ, O’Keefe MB. Baseline donor characteristics in the Cornea Donor Study. Cornea. 2005;24:389–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Terry MA, Wall JM, Hoar KL, Ousley PJ. A prospective study of endothelial cell loss during the 2 years after deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:631–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vail A, Gore SM, Bradley BA, Easty DL, Rogers CA, Armitage WJ. Conclusions of the corneal transplant follow up study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;81:631–6.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williams KA, Ash JK, Pararajasegaram P, Harris S, Coster DJ. Long-term outcome after corneal transplantation. Visual result and patient perception of success. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:651–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams KA, Lowe MT, Keane MC, Jones VJ, Loh RS, Coster DJ, editors. The Australian corneal graft registry 2012 report. Adelaide: Snap Printing; 2012.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wormald R, Dickersin K, Cochrane E, Vision G. Evidence-based ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2361–3.e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Writing Committee for the Cornea Donor Study Research Group, Lass JH, Benetz BA, Gal RL, Kollman C, Raghinaru D, Dontchev M, Mannis MJ, Holland EJ, Chow C, Price Jr FW, Sugar A, Verdier DD, Beck RW. Donor age and factors related to endothelial cell loss 10 years after penetrating keratoplasty: Specular Microscopy Ancillary Study. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2428–35.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Writing Committee for the Cornea Donor Study Research Group, Mannis MJ, Holland EJ, Gal RL, Dontchev M, Kollman C, Raghinaru D, Dunn SP, Schultze RL, Verdier DD, Lass JH, Raber IM, Sugar J, Gorovoy MS, Sugar A, Stulting RD, Montoya MM, Penta JG, Benetz BA, Beck RW. The effect of donor age on penetrating keratoplasty for endothelial disease: graft survival after 10 years in the Cornea Donor Study. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2419–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bristol Eye BankUniversity of Bristol, Bristol Eye HospitalBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations