IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0180468.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endothelial keratoplasty versus repeat penetrating keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Feng Wang
  • Tao Zhang
  • Yan Wei Kang
  • Jing Liang He
  • Shi-Ming Li
  • Shao-Wei Li

Abstract

Objective: This study sought to compare graft survival, graft rejection and the visual acuity outcome of endothelial keratoplasty (EK) with repeat penetrating keratoplasty (PK) after failed PK. Methods: A systematic literature search with subsequent screening of the identified articles was conducted to obtain potentially eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative cohort studies. To assess the methodological quality of the included studies, the Jadad Scale or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used based on the study design. To calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) for graft survival, graft rejection and the visual acuity outcome with 95% confidential intervals (CIs), a fixed- or random-effects model was applied based on the heterogeneity across studies. Results: Four comparative cohort studies (n = 649 eyes) comparing the outcome of EK with repeat PK after failed PK were included in this review. These studies were considered high quality, with NOS scores ranging from 6 to 9. The EK group showed a significantly lower risk of graft rejection than the repeat PK group [0.43 (95% CI: 0.23–0.80, P = 0.007)]. In addition, no significant differences were observed in a comparison of graft survival and visual acuity (P values ranged from 0.81 to 0.97 using the Der-Simonian and Laird random-effects model). Conclusions: As an alternative to repeat PK, EK after failed PK allows for potential reduction of the risk of graft rejection; however, it does not appear to confer a significant advantage in graft survival or visual acuity.

Suggested Citation

  • Feng Wang & Tao Zhang & Yan Wei Kang & Jing Liang He & Shi-Ming Li & Shao-Wei Li, 2017. "Endothelial keratoplasty versus repeat penetrating keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-11, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180468
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180468
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180468&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0180468?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fang-Chi Hsiao & Po-Yuan Chen & Yaa-Jyuhn James Meir & Hsin-Yuan Tan & Ching-Hsi Hsiao & Hsin-Chiung Lin & David Hui-Kang Ma & Lung-Kun Yeh & Wei-Chi Wu & Hung-Chi Chen, 2019. "Clinical Outcomes of Penetrating Keratoplasty and Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty in Asian Population with American Corneas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-12, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180468. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.