Skip to main content

Subepithelial Complications

  • Chapter
Penetrating Keratoplasty

Abstract

In 1978 Krachmer and Alldredge first described subepithelial infiltrations as a form of immune reaction [3]. These are delicate round infiltrations, level with Bowman’s membrane, appearing on the non irritated eye (Fig. 3.1, pg. 35 and 3.2, pg. 35). They are limited to the transplant, with irregular distribution. Combinations with other immune reactions are possible (Fig. 3.3, pg. 36). Compared with epithelial immune reactions, subepithelial reactions appear late. They can appear twelve months or later following surgery. They are not uncommonly discovered by chance, for example with late suture removal. Relatively early onsets can be seen with second keratoplasty [6]. According to literature, the incidence of subepithelial infiltrations is in the range between 2.4% and 15% [1, 2, 5, 6]. Nummular like focuses can appear relatively late [1, 7], i.e. at a time when patients are no longer subject to regular ophthalmologic follow-up examinations. Despite an immunological reaction the eye shows no irritation. If the deeper layers are not involved, there is usually no damage.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alldredge OC, Krachmer JH (1981) Clinical types of corneal transplant rejection. Their manifestations, frequency, preoperative correlates and treatment. Arch Ophthalmol 99:599–604

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Arentsen J J (1983) Corneal transplant allograft reaction: Possible predisposing factors. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 81:361–402

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Krachmer JH, Alldredge OC (1978) Subepithelial infiltrates: a probable sign of corneal transplant rejection. Arch Ophthalmol 96:2234–2237

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mannis MJ (1983) Iron deposition in the corneal graft. Arch Ophthalmol 101:1858–1861

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pleyer U, Weidle EG, Lisch W, Steuhl KP, Moehrle C, Richter U, Zierhut M, Selbmann HK (1990) Klinische Verlaufsformen immunologischer Transplantatreaktion nach perforierender Keratoplastik. Fortschr Ophthalmol 87:14–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Parmley V, Ng J, Gee B, Rotkis W, Mader T (1995) Penetrating keratoplasty after radial keratotomy. A report of six patients. Ophthalmology 102(6):947–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Severin M (1986) Immunreaktionen nach Keratoplastik. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 188:200–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Severin M, Pfister P, Kirchhof B (1991) Complications tardives après kératoplastie. Ophthalmologie 5:280–282

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Severin, M., Bartz-Schmidt, K.U. (2000). Subepithelial Complications. In: Penetrating Keratoplasty. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59684-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59684-1_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-64083-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-59684-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics