You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Review
Shaped corneal transplantation surgery
  1. Pranita Sahay1,
  2. Louis Julian Stevenson2,
  3. Tushar Agarwal1,
  4. Bhavana Sharma3,
  5. Namrata Sharma1,
  6. Rasik B Vajpayee2,4,5
  1. 1 Dr. R. P. Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  2. 2 Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Department of Ophthalmology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India
  4. 4 University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 Vision Eye Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rasik B Vajpayee, University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia; rasikv{at}unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

Since its inception in 1905, keratoplasty techniques have continuously evolved. Shaped keratoplasty procedures have allowed corneal surgeons to use complex graft–host junctions and non-circular graft designs to optimise wound strength and healing, facilitate early suture removal and expedite visual rehabilitation. While this was initially limited to penetrating procedures, shaped lamellar keratoplasty techniques have since emerged. Furthermore, the arrival of femtosecond laser has dramatically increased the range of graft designs available to surgeons, due to the technology’s ability to precisely cut complex wound edges. This review describes the broad range of shaped keratoplasty grafts currently available and elaborates on their respective advantages and disadvantages in relation to conventional keratoplasty.

  • cornea
  • treatment surgery
  • wound healing

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315754

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • PS and LJS are joint first authors.

    • Twitter @rasikv

    • PS and LJS contributed equally.

    • Contributors All authors have contributed significantly and are in agreement with the content of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

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