Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decision-Making in Keratoplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corneal Transplantation

  • 839 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alldredge O, Krachmer J. Clinical types of corneal transplant rejection. Their manifestations, frequency, preoperative correlates, and treatment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1981;99:599–604.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Mohaimeed M. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: visual and graft survival outcomes. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2013;7:67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Anshu A, Price M, Tan D, et al. Endothelial keratoplasty: a revolution in evolution. Surv Ophthalmol. 2012;57:236–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anwar M. Technique in lamellar keratoplasty. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK. 1974;94:163–71.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barney N, Foster C. A prospective randomized trial of oral acyclovir after penetrating keratoplasty for herpes simplex keratitis. Cornea. 1994;13:232–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Boisjoly H, Tourigny R, Bazin R, et al. Risk factors of corneal graft failure. Ophthalmology. 2003;100:1728–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonfadini G, Moreira H, Jun A, et al. Modified femtosecond laser-assisted sutureless anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Cornea. 2013;32:533–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Busin M, Albé E. Does thickness matter: ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014;25:312–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cameron J. Results of lamellar crescentric resection for pellucid marginal corneal degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;113:296–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Claesson M, Armitage W. Astigmatism and the impact of relaxing incisions after penetrating keratoplasty. J Refract Surg. 2007;23:284–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Colin J, Cochener B, Savary G, et al. INTACS inserts for treating keratoconus: one-year results. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1409–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dua H, Azuara-Blanco A. Corneal allograft rejection: risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Indian J Ophthalmol. 1999;47:3–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eye Bank Association of America. 2013 Eye Banking statistical report. Washington, DC: Eye Bank Association of America; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Faraj L, Elaify M, Said D, et al. Fine needle diathermy occlusion of corneal vessels. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:1287–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fares U, Sarhan A, Dua H. Management of post-keratoplasty astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:2029–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Frost N, Wu J, Lai T, et al. A review of randomized controlled trials of penetrating keratoplasty techniques. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:942–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Goodfellow J, Nabili S, Jones M, et al. Antiviral treatment following penetrating keratoplasty for herpetic keratitis. Eye (Lond). 2011;25:470–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gorovoy M. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2006;25:886–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gupta N, Sachdev R, Tandon R. Sutureless patch graft for sterile corneal melts. Cornea. 2010;29:921–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hahn T, Kim J. Two-step annular tectonic lamellar keratoplasty in severe Terrien’s marginal degeneration. Ophthalmic Surg. 1993;24:831–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hallerman W. Verschiedenes uber Keratoplastik. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1959;135:163–71.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Høvding G. Suture adjustment in penetrating keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1994;72:246–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Isager P, Hjortdal J, Ehlers N. Stability of graft refractive power after penetrating keratoplasty. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000;78:623–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kenyon K, Tseng S. Limbal autograft transplantation for ocular surface disorders. Ophthalmology. 1989;96:709–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Khan B, Harissi-Dagher M, Pavan-Langston D, et al. The Boston keratoprosthesis in herpetic keratitis. Arch Opthalmol. 2007;125:745–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kim M, Chung T, Chung E. A retrospective contralateral study comparing deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty with penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2013;32:385–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Koizumi N, Inatomi T, Suzuki T, et al. Cultivated corneal epithelial stem cell transplantation in ocular surface disorders. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1569–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kuryan J, Channa P. Refractive surgery after corneal transplant. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2010;21:259–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lee H, Kim M. Influential factors on the survival of endothelial cells after penetrating keratoplasty. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19:930–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ling S, Liu C, Li W, et al. Corneal lymphangiogenesis correlates closely with hemangiogenesis after keratoplasty. Int J Ophthalmol. 2010;3:76–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. McClinctic S, Shrinivasan M, Mascarenhas J, et al. Improvement in corneal scarring following bacterial keratitis. Eye (Lond). 2013;27:443–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Melles G, Eggink F, Lander F, et al. A surgical technique for posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Cornea. 1998;17:618–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Melles G, Lander F, Nieuwendaal C. Sutureless, posterior lamellar keratoplasty: a case report of a modified technique. Cornea. 2002;21:325–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Melles G, Ong T, Ververs B, et al. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea. 2006;25(8):987–90.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Nanavaty N, Daya S. Outcomes of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in keratoconic eyes with previous hydrops. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:1304–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Olson E, Tu E, Basti S. Stromal rejection following deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty: implications for postoperative care. Cornea. 2012;31:969–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Panda A, Bageshwar L, Ray M, et al. Deep lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty for corneal lesions. Cornea. 1999;18:172–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Panda A, Vanathi M, Kumar A, et al. Corneal graft rejection. Surv Ophtahlmol. 2007;52:375–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Qazi Y, Hamrah P. Corneal allograft rejection: immunopathogenesis to therapeutics. J Clin Cell Immunol. 2013;2013 Suppl 9:006.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Rycroft B, Romanes G. Lamellar corneal grafts. Clinical report on 62 cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 1952;36:337–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Shtein R, Elner V. Herpes simplex virus keratitis: histopathology and corneal allograft outcomes. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2010;5:129–34.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Stevenson W, Shikari H, Saboo U, et al. Bilateral corneal ulceration in ocular graft-versus-host disease. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:2153–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Tan D, Ang L. Automated lamellar therapeutic keratoplasty for post-PRK corneal scarring and thinning. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:1067–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Tan D, Ang L. Modified automated lamellar therapeutic keratoplasty for keratoconus: a new technique. Cornea. 2006;25:1217–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Tan D, Anshu A, Mehta J. Paradigm shifts in corneal transplantation. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2009;38:332–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Terry M, Ousley P. Deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty in the first United States patients: early clinical results. Cornea. 2001;20:239–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. The Australian Corneal Graft Registry. 1990 to 1992 report. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1993;21:1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Tillett C. Posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1956;41:530–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Vanathi M, Sharma N, Titiyal J, et al. Tectonic grafts for corneal thinning and perforations. Cornea. 2002;21:792–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Yaghouti F, Nouri M, Abad J, et al. Keratoprosthesis: preoperative prognostic categories. Cornea. 2001;20:19–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Zerbe B, Belin M, Ciolino J. Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1779–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Anders Ivarsen MD, PhD & Jesper Hjortdal MD, PhD, DrMedSci

Authors
  1. Anders Ivarsen MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jesper Hjortdal MD, PhD, DrMedSci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Ivarsen MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aarhus, Denmark

    Jesper Hjortdal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ivarsen, A., Hjortdal, J. (2016). Decision-Making in Keratoplasty. In: Hjortdal, J. (eds) Corneal Transplantation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24052-7_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24052-7_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24050-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24052-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation