Background/aims To evaluate the clinical outcomes of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty performed by stromal peeling in eyes that have previously undergone penetrating keratoplasty (PK) for keratoconus.
Methods Standardised stromal exchange included (1) 9 mm trephination of the recipient bed outside the old PK wound, (2) creation of a partial anterior corneal flap through lamellar dissection across the PK wound, (3) opening the stromal component of the old PK wound using blunt-tipped Vannas scissors until a plane of separation is reached, (4) severing the attachment of the PK surgical scar from the recipient host, (5) peeling the stroma of the PK graft from the underlying tissue and (6) suturing the donor anterior corneal lamella prepared by microkeratome dissection (450 µm depth, 9 mm diameter). Main outcome measures were success rate, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and endothelial cell loss (ECL).
Results Of 21 post-PK eyes, stromal exchange succeeded in all but three cases, which were converted to a two-piece mushroom PK. After complete suture removal, mean BSCVA significantly improved from 0.95±0.39 logMAR preoperatively to 0.23±0.17 logMAR (p<0.001). Mean ECL was 5.4±23.2%. Double anterior chamber formation occurred in eight cases (44%), which all resolved after a single re-bubbling.
Conclusion In post-PK eyes, stromal exchange can be performed by means of simple peeling without deep anterior lamellar dissection of the previous PK graft. Large-diameter (9 mm) repeat keratoplasty through stromal peeling yields excellent visual outcomes and minimal ECL. Double anterior chamber formation may complicate the postoperative course, but prompt intervention allows successful management.
- treatment surgery
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors Concept and design of the study: CB, VS and MB. Data acquisition: YN, GG, RS and JM. Data analysis/interpretation: JM, ACY and MB. Drafting the manuscript: CB, YN, VS, GG, RS and JM. Critical revision of manuscript: ACY and MB. Statistical analysis: YN and ACY. Final approval: CB, YN, VS, GG, RS, JM, ACY and MB.
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.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
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.