Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar;5(1):38-48.
doi: 10.1007/s40135-017-0119-2. Epub 2017 Feb 2.

Update on the Management of High-Risk Penetrating Keratoplasty

Affiliations

Update on the Management of High-Risk Penetrating Keratoplasty

Sayena Jabbehdari et al. Curr Ophthalmol Rep. 2017 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose of review: In this article, we review the indications and latest management of high-risk penetrating keratoplasty.

Recent findings: Despite the immune-privilege status of the cornea, immune-mediated graft rejection still remains the leading cause of corneal graft failure. This is particularly a problem in the high-risk graft recipients, namely patients with previous graft failure due to rejection and those with inflamed and vascularized corneal beds. A number of strategies including both local and systemic immunosuppression are currently used to increase the success rate of high-risk corneal grafts. Moreover, in cases of limbal stem cell deficiency, limbal stem cells transplantation is employed.

Summary: Corticosteroids are still the top medication for prevention and treatment in cases of corneal graft rejection. Single and combined administration of immunosuppressive agents e.g. tacrolimus, cyclosporine and mycophenolate are promising adjunctive therapies for prolonging graft survival. In the future, cellular and molecular therapies should allow us to achieve immunologic tolerance even in high-risk grafts.

Keywords: Cornea; Graft rejection; High risk; Immunosuppressive drugs; Ocular surface disorder; Penetrating keratoplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Compliance with Ethical Guidelines Conflict of Interest Ali Djalilian, Sayena Jabbehdari, Alireza Baradaran Rafii, Ghasem Yazdanpanah, Pedram Hamrah and Edward Holland declare no conflict of interest. Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Total corneal conjunctivalization and vascularization after a severe alkaline chemical burn.
Figure 2
Figure 2
High risk penetrating keratoplasty in a patient with extensive peripheral anterior synechiae formation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Penetrating keratoplasty in a patient after cultivated limbal epithelial transplantation (CLET). (a) Before CLET. (b) Six months after CLET. (c) Three months after PKP. (d) A year and a half after PKP.

References

    1. Chong EM, Dana MR. Graft failure IV. Immunologic mechanisms of corneal transplant rejection. Int Ophthalmol. 2008;28:209–22. - PubMed
    1. Reis A, Reinhard T. Cornea and External Eye Disease. Springer; 2006. Current systemic immunosuppressive strategies in penetrating keratoplasty; pp. 109–22.
    1. The collaborative corneal transplantation studies (CCTS) Effectiveness of histocompatibility matching in high-risk corneal transplantation. The Collaborative Corneal Transplantation Studies Research Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:1392–403. - PubMed
    1. Guilbert E, Bullet J, Sandali O, Basli E, Laroche L, Borderie VM. Long-term rejection incidence and reversibility after penetrating and lamellar keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;155:560–9. e2. - PubMed
    1. Borderie VM, Sandali O, Bullet J, Gaujoux T, Touzeau O, Laroche L. Long-term results of deep anterior lamellar versus penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:249–55. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources