medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Mexicana de Oftalmología

Anales de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología y Archivos de la Asociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2004, Number 3

Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2004; 78 (3)

Opacidad del injerto corneal. Diagnóstico clínico e histopatológico

Fuentes-Páez G, Del Castillo-Ruiz A, Naranjo-Tackman R
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 107-110
PDF size: 465.98 Kb.


Key words:

Penetrating Keratoplasty, immunologic failure, primary failure, ampullous keratitis.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Determine demographics and special characteristics of patients undergoing repeat penetrating keratoplasty in Hospital Dr. Luis Sánchez Bulnes during 1999-2003.
Materials and methods: Retrospective, observational,descriptive, and longitudinal study. Random revision of 100 files of patients (all ages) subjected to a 2nd penetrating keratoplasty (PK).
Results: Forty six percent were female patients and 54% were male, between 5 and 85 years. Main indication for initial PK included keratoconus 21%, pseudophakic keratopathy 11%, and aphakia in 8%. Clinical diagnoses include immunologic failure 50% and primary failure in 14%. The main histopathologic diagnosis was ampullous keratitis in 53%. A receptor diameter of 7.5mm was selected in 35% of cases and a donor diameter of 8.0 was used in 29% of cases. The most frequently performed surgery after initial PK was PK ( 56%).
Conclusion: Causes for a second corneal graft failure are multifactorial. The main histopathologic diagnosis for graft opacity is ampullous keratitis, in our institution.


REFERENCES

  1. Reza Dana,M. Ying Qian, Pedram Hamrah. Twenty-five Year Panorama of Corneal Immunology. Emerging Concepts in the Immunopathogenesis of Microbial Keratitis, Peripheral Ulcerative Keratitis, and Corneal Transplant Rejection. Cornea 2000;19(5):626-643.

  2. Wilson S, Kaufman H. Graft failures after Penetrating Keratoplasty. Surv Ophthalmol 1990; 34(5):325-349.

  3. Palay D, Stulting D, Waring G, Wilson L. Penetrating Keratoplasty Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Ophthalmol 1992; 99(4):622-627.

  4. Waring G, Welch S, Cavanaugh D, Wilson L. Results of Penetrating Keratoplasty in 123 Eyes with Psuedophakic or Aphakic Corneal Edema Ophthalmol 1983;90(1):25-32.

  5. Kozarsky A, Topak S y cols. Results of Penetrating Keratoplasty for Psuedophakic Corneal Edema With Retention of Intraocular Lens. Ophthalmol 1984; 91(10):1141-1145.

  6. Foulks G. Glaucoma Associated with Penetrating Keratoplasty Ophthalmol 1987; 94(7):871-874.

  7. Gullapalli R, Aquavella J y cols. Pseudophakic Bullous Keratopathy Relationship to Preoperative Corneal Endothelial Status Ophthalmol 1984; 91(10):1135-1140.

  8. Thompson P, Price F. Risk Factors for Various Causes of Failure in Initial Corneal Grafts. Arch Ophthalmol 2003; 121(8):1087-92.

  9. Mayer D y cols. Reducing the Risk of Corneal Graft Rejection A Comparison of Different Methods. Cornea 1987; 6(4):261-267.

  10. Thompson R, Price M, Bowers P. Long Term Graft Survial After Penetrating Keratoplasty. Ophthalmol 2003; 110(7):1396-1402.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Mex Oftalmol. 2004;78