Article Text

PDF
Stability of visual outcome between 2 and 5 years following corneal transplantation in the UK
  1. Sing-Pey Chow1,2,
  2. Cathy L Hopkinson3,
  3. Derek M Tole1,2,
  4. Mark N Jones3,
  5. Stuart D Cook1,
  6. W John Armitage2,4
  7. On behalf of the National Health Service Blood and Ocular Tissue Advisory Group and Contributing Ophthalmologists (OTAG Study 23)
  1. 1Cornea and External Disease Service, Bristol Eye Hospital, Bristol, UK
  2. 2Tissue and Eye Services, National Health Service Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), Bristol, UK
  3. 3Statistics and Clinical Studies, NHSBT, Bristol, UK
  4. 4School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sing-Pey Chow, Bristol Eye Hospital, Bristol, UK; singpey.chow{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background and Aims Many studies of corneal transplantation focus on graft failure or rejection as endpoints, or report visual outcomes at one postoperative time point. We aimed to study the stability of visual outcomes between 2 and 5 years following corneal transplantation.

Methods All patients with keratoconus (868) or Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) (569) receiving their first corneal transplant for visual purposes in the UK between January 2003 and December 2009 were included. The probability of visual improvement or deterioration (gain or loss of ≥2 Snellen lines, respectively) between 2 and 5 years after keratoplasty was modelled by multivariable logistic regression.

Results The majority of keratoconus patients with a penetrating keratoplasty (PK) or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty maintained their visual acuity (651/868; 75%) while 15% (133/868) improved and 10% (84/868) deteriorated. Similarly, most patients with FED who received a PK maintained their vision (395/569; 70%) while 18% (105/569) improved and 12% (68/569) deteriorated.

  • Corneal transplantation
  • penetrating keratoplasty
  • visual outcome

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors SPC contributed to the study design, analysed and interpreted the data, and drafted and revised the paper. CLH contributed to the study design, designed the data collection tools, collected and analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. DMT contributed to the study design, supervised the collection of data, analysed and interpreted the data, and revised the paper. MNJ contributed to the study design, designed the data collection tools, collected and analysed data, and revised the paper. SDC contributed to the study design and revised the paper. WJA conceived and designed the study, supervised the collection of data, analysed and interpreted the data, and drafted and revised the paper.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Our study only involves pooled data and does not contain any identifiable features relating to specific patients.

  • Ethics approval NHS Blood and Ocular Tissue Advisory Group.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.