Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Evaluation of topical ciclosporin 0.05% for prevention of rejection in high-risk corneal grafts
  1. M Ünal,
  2. I Yücel
  1. Akdeniz University Medical Faculty, Department of Ophthalmology, Antalya, Turkey
  1. Dr M Ünal, Demircikara mah. 1426. sk., Zeybek Apt. B Blok. 14/12, Antalya, Turkey; mustafaunalmd{at}


Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of combined treatment with commercially available 0.05% topical ciclosporin and topical corticosteroid compared with treatment with topical corticosteroids only after high-risk keratoplasty.

Patients and methods: A total of 47 high-risk keratoplasties were randomly divided into two groups based on the postoperative immunosuppression. Twenty-five eyes (group 1) were treated with 0.05% ciclosporin and dexamethasone 0.1%, and 22 eyes (group 2) were treated with dexamethasone only. The clinical outcome of penetrating keratoplasty was evaluated by the rate of rejection-free graft survival and graft survival evaluation by the Kaplan–Meier logrank test.

Results: The average length of follow-up was 20.2 (SD 7.1) months in group 1 and 18.5 (6.6) months in group 2 (p = 0.421). Rejection-free graft survival rates were 60.8% in group 1 and 54.5% in group 2 (Kaplan–Meier logrank test, p = 0.474). In group 1, the graft survival rate was 73.9%; in group 2, the graft survival rate was 68.1%. The difference in the graft survival rates between the groups was also not statistically significant (Kaplan–Meier logrank test, p = 0.518).

Conclusion: In high-risk corneal grafts, the efficacy of 0.05 percent commercially available topical ciclosporin combined with dexamethasone topically was not better than that of dexamethasone alone in preventing rejection.

Statistics from

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.


  • Funding: This study was supported by Akdeniz University Scientific Research Projects Unit.

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Ethics approval: Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Akdeniz University Medical Faculty.

  • Patient consent: Obtained.

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh