Decision-Making in Keratoplasty

  • Anders IvarsenEmail author
  • Jesper Hjortdal


Within the last 10–15 years, dramatic improvements have occurred within the field of corneal transplantation. The advent of sutureless posterior lamellar keratoplasty has revolutionized the treatment of endothelial disease. Similarly, developments in surgical technique and technology have improved the outcome of anterior lamellar procedures. Despite the many improvements, however, keratoplasty is not without complications, and patients with one or more risk factors for graft failure still pose significant challenges. Thus, although modern-day surgeons have several treatment modalities available, any given corneal condition needs careful consideration to decide whether or not to graft and to choose which procedure is most beneficial for the patient as seen in context of the supply of donor tissue and local organization.

In the present chapter, the various treatment modalities are outlined including their indications and which treatment to consider under given circumstances.


Decision-making Keratoplasty Corneal transplantation DSAEK DMEK DALK Patient information 


  1. 1.
    Akpek E, Harissi-Dager M, Petrarca R, et al. Outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis in aniridia: a retrospective multicenter study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:227–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alldredge O, Krachmer J. Clinical types of corneal transplant rejection. Their manifestations, frequency, preoperative correlates, and treatment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1981;99:599–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Mohaimeed M. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: visual and graft survival outcomes. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2013;7:67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Almousa R, Samaras K, Khan S, et al. Femtosecond laser-assisted lamellar keratoplasty (FSLK) for anterior corneal stromal diseases. Int Ophthalmol. 2014;34:49–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amayem A, Hamdi I, Hamdi M. Refractive and visual outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty with hydrodissection for treatment of keratoconus. Cornea. 2013;32:e2–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anshu A, Price M, Price FJ. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:536–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anshu A, Price M, Tan D, et al. Endothelial keratoplasty: a revolution in evolution. Surv Ophthalmol. 2012;57:236–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anwar M. Technique in lamellar keratoplasty. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK. 1974;94:163–71.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Armitage W, Dick A, Bourne W. Predicting endothelial cell loss and long-term corneal graft survival. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3326–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barney N, Foster C. A prospective randomized trial of oral acyclovir after penetrating keratoplasty for herpes simplex keratitis. Cornea. 1994;13:232–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartels M, Doxiadis I, Colen T, et al. Long-term outcome in high-risk corneal transplantation and the influence of HLA-A and HLA-B matching. Cornea. 2003;22:552–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Böhringer D, Böhringer S, Poxleitner K, et al. Long-term graft survival in penetrating keratoplasty: the biexponential model of chronic endothelial cell loss revisited. Cornea. 2010;29:1113–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Birnbaum F, Wiggermann A, Maier P, et al. Clinical results of 123 femtosecond laser-assisted penetrating keratoplasties. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:95–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boisjoly H, Tourigny R, Bazin R, et al. Risk factors of corneal graft failure. Ophthalmology. 2003;100:1728–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonfadini G, Moreira H, Jun A, et al. Modified femtosecond laser-assisted sutureless anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Cornea. 2013;32:533–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Busin M, Albé E. Does thickness matter: ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014;25:312–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Busin M, Madi S, Santorum P, et al. Ultrathin Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the microkeratome double-pass technique: two-year outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1186–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cameron J. Results of lamellar crescentric resection for pellucid marginal corneal degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;113:296–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chamberlain W, Omid N, Lin A, et al. Comparison of corneal surface higher-order aberrations after endothelial keratoplasty, femtosecond laser-assisted keratoplasty, and conventional penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2012;31:6–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Choi J, Lee M, Kim M. Long-term outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus: analysis of the factors associated with final visual acuities. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014;18:517–21.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Claesson M, Armitage W. Astigmatism and the impact of relaxing incisions after penetrating keratoplasty. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:284–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen A, Goins K, Sutphin J, et al. Penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for the treatment of keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol. 2010;30:675–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Colin J, Cochener B, Savary G, et al. INTACS inserts for treating keratoconus: one-year results. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1409–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dietrich T, Bock F, Yuen D, et al. Cutting edge: lymphatic vessels, not blood vessels, primarily mediate immune rejections after transplantation. J Immunol. 2010;15:535–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dua H, Azuara-Blanco A. Corneal allograft rejection: risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Indian J Ophthalmol. 1999;47:3–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Epstein R, Seedor J, Dreizen N, et al. Penetrating keratoplasty for herpes simplex keratitis and keratoconus. Allograft rejection and survival. Ophthalmology. 1987;94:935–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eye Bank Association of America. 2013 Eye Banking statistical report. Washington, DC: Eye Bank Association of America; 2014.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Faraj L, Elaify M, Said D, et al. Fine needle diathermy occlusion of corneal vessels. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:1287–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fares U, Sarhan A, Dua H. Management of post-keratoplasty astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:2029–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Feng M, Price M, Miller J, et al. Air reinjection and endothelial cell density in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: five-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40:1116–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Filatov V, Alexandrakis G, Talamo J, et al. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frost N, Wu J, Lai T, et al. A review of randomized controlled trials of penetrating keratoplasty techniques. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:942–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Garcia D, Farjo Q, Musch D, et al. Effect of prophylactic oral acyclovir after penetrating keratoplasty for herpes simplex keratitis. Cornea. 2007;26:930–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gaster R, Dumitrascu O, Rabinowitz Y. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goodfellow J, Nabili S, Jones M, et al. Antiviral treatment following penetrating keratoplasty for herpetic keratitis. Eye (Lond). 2011;25:470–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gorovoy M. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2006;25:886–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guerra F, Anshu A, Price M, et al. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:2368–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guerra F, Anshu A, Price M, et al. Endothelial keratoplasty: fellow eyes comparison of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2011;30:1382–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gupta N, Sachdev R, Tandon R. Sutureless patch graft for sterile corneal melts. Cornea. 2010;29:921–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hahn T, Kim J. Two-step annular tectonic lamellar keratoplasty in severe Terrien’s marginal degeneration. Ophthalmic Surg. 1993;24:831–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hallerman W. Verschiedenes uber Keratoplastik. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1959;135:163–71.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Høvding G. Suture adjustment in penetrating keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1994;72:246–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Heinzelmann S, Böhringer D, Maier P, et al. Correlation between visual acuity and interface reflectivity measured by pentacam following DSAEK. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92:e1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hjortdal J, Pedersen I, Bak-Nielsen S, et al. Graft rejection and graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty or posterior lamellar keratoplasty for fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Cornea. 2013;32:e60–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hjortdal J, Søndergaard A, Fledelius W, et al. Influence of suture regularity on corneal astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89:412–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Holbach L, Bayer J, Seitz B, et al. Herpes simplex keratitis. On the long-term prognosis of first transplants after penetrating keratoplasty On the long-term prognosis of first transplants after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmologe. 1993;90:698–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Holland E, Mogilishetty G, Skeens H, et al. Systemic immunosuppression in ocular surface stem cell transplantation: results of a 10-year experience. Cornea. 2012;31:655–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Holz H, Meyer J, Espandar L, et al. Corneal profile analysis after descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty and its relationship to postoperative hyperopic shift. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:211–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Isager P, Hjortdal J, Ehlers N. Stability of graft refractive power after penetrating keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:623–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J. Recipient corneal thickness and visual outcome after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:30–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kamp M, Fink N, Enger C, et al. Patient-reported symptoms associated with graft reactions in high-risk patients in the collaborative corneal transplantation studies. Collaborative Corneal Transplantation Studies Research Group. Cornea. 1995;14:43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Keenan T, Jones M, Rushton S, et al. Trends in the indications for corneal graft surgery in the United Kingdom: 1999 through 2009. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130:621–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kenyon K, Tseng S. Limbal autograft transplantation for ocular surface disorders. Ophthalmology. 1989;96:709–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Khan B, Harissi-Dagher M, Pavan-Langston D, et al. The Boston keratoprosthesis in herpetic keratitis. Arch Opthalmol. 2007;125:745–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kim M, Chung T, Chung E. A retrospective contralateral study comparing deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty with penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2013;32:385–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Koenig Y, Bock F, Kruse F, et al. Angioregressive pretreatment of mature corneal blood vessels before keratoplasty: fine-needle vessel coagulation combined with anti-VEGFs. Cornea. 2012;31:887–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Koizumi N, Inatomi T, Suzuki T, et al. Cultivated corneal epithelial stem cell transplantation in ocular surface disorders. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1569–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kuryan J, Channa P. Refractive surgery after corneal transplant. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2010;21:259–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Langenbucher A, Seitz B. Changes in corneal power and refraction due to sequential suture removal following nonmechanical penetrating keratoplasty in eyes with keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:287–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lee W, Jacobs D, Musch D, et al. Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1818–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lee H, Kim M. Influential factors on the survival of endothelial cells after penetrating keratoplasty. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19:930–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ling S, Liu C, Li W, et al. Corneal lymphangiogenesis correlates closely with hemangiogenesis after keratoplasty. Int J Ophthalmol. 2010;3:76–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lomholt J, Baggesen K, Ehlers N. Recurrence and rejection rates following corneal transplantation for herpes simplex keratitis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1995;73:29–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lyall D, Tarafdar S, Gilhooly M, et al. Long term visual outcomes, graft survival and complications of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in patients with herpes simplex related corneal scarring. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:1200–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    MacIntyre R, Chow S, Chan E, et al. Long-term outcomes of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in Australian keratoconus patients. Cornea. 2014;33:6–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Maguire M, Stark W, Gottsch J, et al. Risk factors for corneal graft failure and rejection in the collaborative corneal transplantation studies. Collaborative corneal transplantation studies research group. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1536–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    McClinctic S, Shrinivasan M, Mascarenhas J, et al. Improvement in corneal scarring following bacterial keratitis. Eye (Lond). 2013;27:443–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Melles G, Eggink F, Lander F, et al. A surgical technique for posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Cornea. 1998;17:618–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Melles G, Lander F, Nieuwendaal C. Sutureless, posterior lamellar keratoplasty: a case report of a modified technique. Cornea. 2002;21:325–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Melles G, Lander F, Rietveld F. Transplantation of Descemet’s membrane carrying viable endothelium through a small scleral incision. Cornea. 2002;21(4):415–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Melles G, Ong T, Ververs B, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea. 2006;25(8):987–90.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Nanavaty N, Daya S. Outcomes of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in keratoconic eyes with previous hydrops. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:1304–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Olson E, Tu E, Basti S. Stromal rejection following deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty: implications for postoperative care. Cornea. 2012;31:969–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Panda A, Bageshwar L, Ray M, et al. Deep lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for corneal lesions. Cornea. 1999;18:172–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Panda A, Vanathi M, Kumar A, et al. Corneal graft rejection. Surv Ophtahlmol. 2007;52:375–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Pantanelli S, Sabesan R, Ching S, et al. Visual performance with wave aberration correction after penetrating, deep anterior lamellar, or endothelial keratoplasty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;20:4797–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Patel A, Scorcia V, Kadyan A, et al. Microkeratome-assisted superficial anterior lamellar keratoplasty for anterior stromal corneal opacities after penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2012;31:101–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Pedersen I, Ivarsen A, Hjortdal J. Graft rejection and failure following endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and penetrating keratoplasty for secondary endothelial failure. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;93(2):172–7.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Pellegrini G, Traverso C, Franzi A, et al. Long-term restoration of damaged corneal surfaces with autologous cultivated corneal epithelium. Lancet. 1997;349:990–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Price M, Gorovoy M, Price FJ, et al. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: three-year graft and endothelial cell survival compared with penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:246–51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Price FJ, Price M. Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 50 eyes: a refractive neutral corneal transplant. J Refract Surg. 2005;21:339–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Price FJ, Price M. Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 200 eyes: early challenges and techniques to enhance donor adherence. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:411–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Qazi Y, Hamrah P. Corneal allograft rejection: immunopathogenesis to therapeutics. J Clin Cell Immunol. 2013;2013 Suppl 9:006.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Reinhard T, Böhringer D, Enczmann J, et al. Improvement of graft prognosis in penetrating normal-risk keratoplasty by HLA class I and II matching. Eye (Lond). 2004;18:269–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Reinhard T, Mayweg S, Sokolovska Y, et al. Systemic mycophenolate mofetil avoids immune reactions in penetrating high-risk keratoplasty: preliminary results of an ongoing prospectively randomized multicentre study. Transpl Int. 2005;18:703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Rycroft B, Romanes G. Lamellar corneal grafts. Clinical report on 62 cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 1952;36:337–51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Sanfilippo F, MacQueen J, Vaughn W, et al. Reduced graft rejection with good HLA-A and B matching in high-risk corneal transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Sejpal K, Bakhtiari P, Deng S. Presentation, diagnosis and management of limbal stem cell deficiency. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013;20:5–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Sharma N, Kandar A, Singh T. Stromal rejection after big bubble deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty: case series and review of literature. Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39:194–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Shimazaki J, Shimmura S, Ishioka M, et al. Randomized clinical trial of deep lamellar keratoplasty v penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134:159–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Shousha M, Yoo S, Kymonis G, et al. Long-term results of femtosecond laser-assisted sutureless anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:315–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Shtein R, Elner V. Herpes simplex virus keratitis: histopathology and corneal allograft outcomes. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2010;5:129–34.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Sogutlu S, Kubaloglu A, Unal M, et al. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for macular corneal dystrophy: a randomized trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Stevenson W, Shikari H, Saboo U, et al. Bilateral corneal ulceration in ocular graft-versus-host disease. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:2153–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Tan D, Ang L. Automated lamellar therapeutic keratoplasty for post-PRK corneal scarring and thinning. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:1067–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Tan D, Ang L. Modified automated lamellar therapeutic keratoplasty for keratoconus: a new technique. Cornea. 2006;25:1217–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Tan D, Anshu A, Mehta J. Paradigm shifts in corneal transplantation. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2009;38:332–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Tan A, Tan D, Tan X, et al. Osteo-odonto keratoprosthesis: systematic review of surgical outcomes and complication rates. Ocul Surf. 2012;10:15–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Terry M, Goshe J, Davis-Boozer D. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: three-year graft and endothelial cell survival compared with penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1944–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Terry M, Ousley P. Deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty in the first United States patients: early clinical results. Cornea. 2001;20:239–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Terry M, Straiko M, Gosce J, et al. Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: the tenuous relationship between donor thickness and postoperative vision. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1988–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    The Australian Corneal Graft Registry. 1990 to 1992 report. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1993;21:1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Tillett C. Posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1956;41:530–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann B, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:1082–90.e2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Tourtas T, Schlomberg J, Wessel J, et al. Graft adhesion in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty dependent on size of removal of host’s descemet membrane. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:155–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Touzeau O, Borderie V, Allouch C, et al. Effects of penetrating keratoplasty suture removal on corneal topography and refraction. Cornea. 1999;18:638–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Trikha S, Parikh S, Osmond C, et al. Long-term outcomes of Fine Needle Diathermy for established corneal neovascularisation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:454–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Vanathi M, Sharma N, Titiyal J, et al. Tectonic grafts for corneal thinning and perforations. Cornea. 2002;21:792–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    van Cleynenbreugel H, Remeijer L, Hillenaar T. Cataract surgery in patients with Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy: when to consider a triple procedure. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:445–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Van Meter W. The efficacy of a single continuous nylon suture for control of post keratoplasty astigmatism. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1996;94:1157–80.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    van Rooij J, Rijneveld W, Remeijer L, et al. Effect of oral acyclovir after penetrating keratoplasty for herpetic keratitis: a placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1916–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Venkataratnam S, Ganekal S, Dorairaj S, et al. Big-bubble deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for post-keratitis and post-traumatic corneal stromal scars. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2012;40:537–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Volker-Dieben H. The effect of immunological and non-immunological factors on corneal graft survival. A single center study. Doc Ophthalmol. 1982;51:1.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wang M, Lin Y, Chen J, et al. Studies on the effects of the immunosuppressant FK-506 on the high-risk corneal graft rejection. Yan Ke Xue Bao. 2002;18:160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ward M, Goins K, Greiner M, et al. Graft survival versus glaucoma treatment after penetrating or descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2014;33:785–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Watson S, Ramsay A, Dart J, et al. Comparison of deep lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1676–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Wetterstrand O, Holopainen J, Krootila K. Treatment of postoperative keratoplasty astigmatism using femtosecond laser-assisted intrastromal relaxing incisions. J Refract Surg. 2013;29:378–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Williams K, Lowe M, Bartlett C, et al. Risk factors for human corneal graft failure within the Australian corneal graft registry. Transplantation. 2008;86:1720–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Wu S, Zhou P, Zhang B, et al. Long-term comparison of full-bed deep lamellar keratoplasty with penetrating keratoplasty in treating corneal leucoma caused by herpes simplex keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:291–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Yaghouti F, Nouri M, Abad J, et al. Keratoprosthesis: preoperative prognostic categories. Cornea. 2001;20:19–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Zerbe B, Belin M, Ciolino J. Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1779–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Zhang Y, Wu S, Yao Y. Long-term comparison of full-bed deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in treating keratoconus. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2013;14:438–50.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyAarhus University HospitalAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations