Cargando…

Analysis of the Changes in Keratoplasty Indications and Preferred Techniques

BACKGROUND: Recently, novel techniques introduced to the field of corneal surgery, e.g. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and corneal crosslinking, extended the therapeutic options. Additionally contact lens fitting has developed new alternatives. We herein investigated, whether thes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lang, Stefan J., Bischoff, Mona, Böhringer, Daniel, Seitz, Berthold, Reinhard, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227865/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25386909
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112696
_version_ 1782343891656114176
author Lang, Stefan J.
Bischoff, Mona
Böhringer, Daniel
Seitz, Berthold
Reinhard, Thomas
author_facet Lang, Stefan J.
Bischoff, Mona
Böhringer, Daniel
Seitz, Berthold
Reinhard, Thomas
author_sort Lang, Stefan J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recently, novel techniques introduced to the field of corneal surgery, e.g. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and corneal crosslinking, extended the therapeutic options. Additionally contact lens fitting has developed new alternatives. We herein investigated, whether these techniques have affected volume and spectrum of indications of keratoplasties in both a center more specialized in treating Fuchs’ dystrophy (center 1) and a second center that is more specialized in treating keratoconus (center 2). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the waiting lists for indication, transplantation technique and the patients’ travel distances to the hospital at both centers. RESULTS: We reviewed a total of 3778 procedures. Fuchs’ dystrophy increased at center 1 from 17% (42) to 44% (150) and from 13% (27) to 23% (62) at center 2. In center 1, DMEK increased from zero percent in 2010 to 51% in 2013. In center 2, DMEK was not performed until 2013. The percentage of patients with keratoconus slightly decreased from 15% (36) in 2009 vs. 12% (40) in 2013 in center 1. The respective percentages in center 2 were 28% (57) and 19% (51). In both centers, the patients’ travel distances increased. CONCLUSIONS: The results from center 1 suggest that DMEK might increase the total number of keratoplasties. The increase in travel distance suggests that this cannot be fully attributed to recruiting the less advanced patients from the hospital proximity. The increase is rather due to more referrals from other regions. The decrease of keratoconus patients in both centers is surprising and may be attributed to optimized contact lens fitting or even to the effect corneal crosslinking procedure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4227865
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42278652014-11-18 Analysis of the Changes in Keratoplasty Indications and Preferred Techniques Lang, Stefan J. Bischoff, Mona Böhringer, Daniel Seitz, Berthold Reinhard, Thomas PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Recently, novel techniques introduced to the field of corneal surgery, e.g. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and corneal crosslinking, extended the therapeutic options. Additionally contact lens fitting has developed new alternatives. We herein investigated, whether these techniques have affected volume and spectrum of indications of keratoplasties in both a center more specialized in treating Fuchs’ dystrophy (center 1) and a second center that is more specialized in treating keratoconus (center 2). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the waiting lists for indication, transplantation technique and the patients’ travel distances to the hospital at both centers. RESULTS: We reviewed a total of 3778 procedures. Fuchs’ dystrophy increased at center 1 from 17% (42) to 44% (150) and from 13% (27) to 23% (62) at center 2. In center 1, DMEK increased from zero percent in 2010 to 51% in 2013. In center 2, DMEK was not performed until 2013. The percentage of patients with keratoconus slightly decreased from 15% (36) in 2009 vs. 12% (40) in 2013 in center 1. The respective percentages in center 2 were 28% (57) and 19% (51). In both centers, the patients’ travel distances increased. CONCLUSIONS: The results from center 1 suggest that DMEK might increase the total number of keratoplasties. The increase in travel distance suggests that this cannot be fully attributed to recruiting the less advanced patients from the hospital proximity. The increase is rather due to more referrals from other regions. The decrease of keratoconus patients in both centers is surprising and may be attributed to optimized contact lens fitting or even to the effect corneal crosslinking procedure. Public Library of Science 2014-11-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4227865/ /pubmed/25386909 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112696 Text en © 2014 Lang et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lang, Stefan J.
Bischoff, Mona
Böhringer, Daniel
Seitz, Berthold
Reinhard, Thomas
Analysis of the Changes in Keratoplasty Indications and Preferred Techniques
title Analysis of the Changes in Keratoplasty Indications and Preferred Techniques
title_full Analysis of the Changes in Keratoplasty Indications and Preferred Techniques
title_fullStr Analysis of the Changes in Keratoplasty Indications and Preferred Techniques
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of the Changes in Keratoplasty Indications and Preferred Techniques
title_short Analysis of the Changes in Keratoplasty Indications and Preferred Techniques
title_sort analysis of the changes in keratoplasty indications and preferred techniques
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4227865/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25386909
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112696
work_keys_str_mv AT langstefanj analysisofthechangesinkeratoplastyindicationsandpreferredtechniques
AT bischoffmona analysisofthechangesinkeratoplastyindicationsandpreferredtechniques
AT bohringerdaniel analysisofthechangesinkeratoplastyindicationsandpreferredtechniques
AT seitzberthold analysisofthechangesinkeratoplastyindicationsandpreferredtechniques
AT reinhardthomas analysisofthechangesinkeratoplastyindicationsandpreferredtechniques