Long-term Outcomes of Repeated Corneal Transplantations: A Prospective Dutch Registry Study

Mor M Dickman*, Lindsay S Spekreijse, Suryan L Dunker, Bjorn Winkens, Tos T J M Berendschot, Frank J H M van den Biggelaar, Pieter Jan Kruit, Rudy M M A Nuijts

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

8 Citations (Web of Science)
18 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare long-term outcomes of repeated corneal transplantations (CT), based on primary indication (Fuchs endothelial dystrophy, FED vs. pseudophakic bullous keratoplasty, PBK), surgical technique (penetrating keratoplasty, PK vs. endothelial keratoplasty, EK), and indication for repeated grafting.

SETTINGS: Non-randomized treatment comparison with national registry data (Netherlands Organ Transplantation Registry, NOTR).

METHODS: Data on all consecutive repeated CT following primary PK or EK for FED and PBK between 1994 and 2015 was analyzed, with a maximal follow-up of 5 years. Regraft survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, univariable, and multivariable Cox regression analysis.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES: best corrected visual acuity, spherical equivalent, and refractive astigmatism, were compared using linear mixed model analysis.

RESULTS: A total of 332 repeated CT were analyzed. The number of regrafts increased significantly between 2007 and 2015 (p=0.001). Overall 5-year regraft survival was 60% and was higher for FED vs. PBK (77% vs. 45%, HR=0.40, p<0.001), and re-EK vs. re-PK (81% vs. 55%, HR=0.51, p=0.041). However, multivariable analysis showed no significant difference in survival based on primary indication, surgical technique, and indication for regrafting. Corrected for baseline, secondary outcomes also did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant increase in repeated CT, coinciding with the introduction of EK in the Netherlands. While univariable analysis suggested better overall regraft survival for FED and (re-)EK, multivariable analysis showed no such difference. This may be due to allocation of favorable cases to undergo (re-)EK. Similarly, secondary outcomes were determined by the primary CT technique.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)156-165
Number of pages10
JournalAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume193
Early online date28 Jun 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2018

Keywords

  • AUTOMATED ENDOTHELIAL KERATOPLASTY
  • FAILED PENETRATING KERATOPLASTY
  • GRAFT FAILURE
  • LEARNING-CURVE
  • SURVIVAL
  • RISK
  • REJECTION
  • LAMELLAR
  • TRENDS

Cite this