ABSTRACT Penetrating keratoplasty in children is a highly challenging and demanding procedure associated with a high risk of graft failure or failure of amblyopia therapy in clear grafts. Nonetheless, keratoplasty remains the surgery of choice for the management of pediatric corneal stromal opacities or edema. Allograft rejection, graft infection, corneal neovascularization, glaucoma, trauma to the anterior segment, vitreous pathology, and additional surgical interventions, especially those related to glaucoma management, are important risk factors. Successful penetrating keratoplasty in children requires careful preoperative evaluation and selection of patients follow-up by well-motivated parents, an expert corneal transplant surgeon, and a devoted pediatric ophthalmologist.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To investigate and compare the clinical outcome of primary penetrating keratoplasty in pediatric patients with Peters anomaly and sclerocornea. Medical records of 20 eyes of 18 patients with Peters anomaly or sclerocornea who underwent primary penetrating keratoplasty when they were 5 years or younger were reviewed. The survival rates and median survival times of corneal grafts were evaluated to determine the surgical outcome. Demographics of patients, the preoperative characteristics of recipient eyes, surgical procedures, causes of graft failure, and postoperative complications were analyzed to identify the factors affecting graft survival. A total of 20 penetrating keratoplasties were performed in 18 patients. Eight patients had Peters anomaly, and 10 patients had sclerocornea. Overall, 50% of corneal grafts survived during the follow-up of 92.7 ± 10 months. The graft survival was 65% at 6 months and remained 50% at 12 months, 2 years, and 5 years after surgery. The mean survival time and survival rate were significantly different between patients with Peters anomaly and those with sclerocornea (the survival time, 135.6 ± 17.9 vs. 36.4 ± 16.1 months, P = 0.014; the survival rate, 87.5% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.02). The presence of opacity or vascularization in the limbus and in the peripheral cornea and the diameter of the recipient cornea were significantly correlated with graft failure. Penetrating keratoplasty in patients who were 5 years or younger had an excellent surgical outcome in patients with Peters anomaly, whereas the graft survival was poor in patients with sclerocornea.Cornea 11/2013; 32(11):1432-1436. · 1.75 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pediatric keratoconus demonstrates several distinctive management issues in comparison with adult keratoconus with respect to under-diagnosis, poor compliance and modifications in treatment patterns. The major concerns comprise of the accelerated progression of the disease in the pediatric age group and management of co-morbidities such as vernal keratoconjuntivitis. Visual impairment in pediatric patients may affect social and educational development and overall negatively impact their quality of life. The treatment algorithm between adults and pediatric keratoconus has been similar; comprising mainly of visual rehabilitation with spectacles, contacts lenses (soft or rigid) and keratoplasty (lamellar or penetrating) depending on the stage of the disease. There is a paradigm shift in the management of keratoconus, a new treatment modality, corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL), has been utilized in adult keratoconic patients halting the progression of the disease. CXL has been utilized for over a 10 year period and based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the adult population; this treatment has been recently utilized in management of pediatric keratoconus. This article will present an update about current management of pediatric keratoconus with special focus on CXL in this age group.Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 08/2013; 61(8):435-40. · 1.02 Impact Factor
- Journal of AAPOS: the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus / American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus 06/2013; 17(3):337-8. · 1.07 Impact Factor