Glaucoma Drainage Devices and Reasons for Keratoplasty

Catherine G. Knier, Feng Wang, Keith Baratz, Cheryl Khanna

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Précis: Over 10 years in a tertiary care setting, glaucoma drainage devices have not increased as a reason for keratoplasty. Purpose: To determine whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 10 years in a tertiary care setting, with special attention to the rate of glaucoma drainage devices as a reason for keratoplasty. Methods: Patients aged >=18 who underwent keratoplasty at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN from 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 were studied. All reasons for keratoplasty performed in the study time period are assessed, including patients who previously had a glaucoma drainage device implanted in the same eye. After analyzing the reasons for keratoplasty, we assess whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 in association with the increasing placement of glaucoma drainage devices. Results: The number of keratoplasty procedures performed in the two time periods increased by 62% from 163 (2005-2006) to 264 (2015-2016), while glaucoma drainage device placement increased by 164% from 80 GDD (2005-2006) to 211 GDD (2015-2016). While the performance of keratoplasty increased between the two points in time, the frequency of each cause for keratoplasty did not change significantly. The majority of keratoplasties were performed due to corneal disease, and glaucoma drainage devices made up a small portion of reasons for keratoplasty (2005-2006, 4.29%; 2015-2016, 5.68%). Conclusions: The frequency of glaucoma drainage devices as a reason for keratoplasty has not changed significantly between 10 years in this tertiary care setting. Patients with glaucoma drainage devices who later required keratoplasty had associated features including multiple surgical procedures and co-morbid infection, pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, Fuchs dystrophy, PXE, uveitis, and congenital glaucoma.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of glaucoma
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Corneal Transplantation
Glaucoma
Drainage
Equipment and Supplies
Tertiary Healthcare
Fuchs' Endothelial Dystrophy
Corneal Diseases
Uveitis
Coinfection

Keywords

  • corneal graft
  • corneal transplant
  • glaucoma
  • glaucoma drainage device
  • keratoplasty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Glaucoma Drainage Devices and Reasons for Keratoplasty. / Knier, Catherine G.; Wang, Feng; Baratz, Keith; Khanna, Cheryl.

In: Journal of glaucoma, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{39ba9a61d58f44bab95089ff4e69a1f9,
title = "Glaucoma Drainage Devices and Reasons for Keratoplasty",
abstract = "Pr{\'e}cis: Over 10 years in a tertiary care setting, glaucoma drainage devices have not increased as a reason for keratoplasty. Purpose: To determine whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 10 years in a tertiary care setting, with special attention to the rate of glaucoma drainage devices as a reason for keratoplasty. Methods: Patients aged >=18 who underwent keratoplasty at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN from 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 were studied. All reasons for keratoplasty performed in the study time period are assessed, including patients who previously had a glaucoma drainage device implanted in the same eye. After analyzing the reasons for keratoplasty, we assess whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 in association with the increasing placement of glaucoma drainage devices. Results: The number of keratoplasty procedures performed in the two time periods increased by 62{\%} from 163 (2005-2006) to 264 (2015-2016), while glaucoma drainage device placement increased by 164{\%} from 80 GDD (2005-2006) to 211 GDD (2015-2016). While the performance of keratoplasty increased between the two points in time, the frequency of each cause for keratoplasty did not change significantly. The majority of keratoplasties were performed due to corneal disease, and glaucoma drainage devices made up a small portion of reasons for keratoplasty (2005-2006, 4.29{\%}; 2015-2016, 5.68{\%}). Conclusions: The frequency of glaucoma drainage devices as a reason for keratoplasty has not changed significantly between 10 years in this tertiary care setting. Patients with glaucoma drainage devices who later required keratoplasty had associated features including multiple surgical procedures and co-morbid infection, pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, Fuchs dystrophy, PXE, uveitis, and congenital glaucoma.",
keywords = "corneal graft, corneal transplant, glaucoma, glaucoma drainage device, keratoplasty",
author = "Knier, {Catherine G.} and Feng Wang and Keith Baratz and Cheryl Khanna",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/IJG.0000000000001340",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Glaucoma",
issn = "1057-0829",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Glaucoma Drainage Devices and Reasons for Keratoplasty

AU - Knier, Catherine G.

AU - Wang, Feng

AU - Baratz, Keith

AU - Khanna, Cheryl

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Précis: Over 10 years in a tertiary care setting, glaucoma drainage devices have not increased as a reason for keratoplasty. Purpose: To determine whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 10 years in a tertiary care setting, with special attention to the rate of glaucoma drainage devices as a reason for keratoplasty. Methods: Patients aged >=18 who underwent keratoplasty at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN from 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 were studied. All reasons for keratoplasty performed in the study time period are assessed, including patients who previously had a glaucoma drainage device implanted in the same eye. After analyzing the reasons for keratoplasty, we assess whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 in association with the increasing placement of glaucoma drainage devices. Results: The number of keratoplasty procedures performed in the two time periods increased by 62% from 163 (2005-2006) to 264 (2015-2016), while glaucoma drainage device placement increased by 164% from 80 GDD (2005-2006) to 211 GDD (2015-2016). While the performance of keratoplasty increased between the two points in time, the frequency of each cause for keratoplasty did not change significantly. The majority of keratoplasties were performed due to corneal disease, and glaucoma drainage devices made up a small portion of reasons for keratoplasty (2005-2006, 4.29%; 2015-2016, 5.68%). Conclusions: The frequency of glaucoma drainage devices as a reason for keratoplasty has not changed significantly between 10 years in this tertiary care setting. Patients with glaucoma drainage devices who later required keratoplasty had associated features including multiple surgical procedures and co-morbid infection, pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, Fuchs dystrophy, PXE, uveitis, and congenital glaucoma.

AB - Précis: Over 10 years in a tertiary care setting, glaucoma drainage devices have not increased as a reason for keratoplasty. Purpose: To determine whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 10 years in a tertiary care setting, with special attention to the rate of glaucoma drainage devices as a reason for keratoplasty. Methods: Patients aged >=18 who underwent keratoplasty at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN from 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 were studied. All reasons for keratoplasty performed in the study time period are assessed, including patients who previously had a glaucoma drainage device implanted in the same eye. After analyzing the reasons for keratoplasty, we assess whether the reasons for keratoplasty have changed between 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 in association with the increasing placement of glaucoma drainage devices. Results: The number of keratoplasty procedures performed in the two time periods increased by 62% from 163 (2005-2006) to 264 (2015-2016), while glaucoma drainage device placement increased by 164% from 80 GDD (2005-2006) to 211 GDD (2015-2016). While the performance of keratoplasty increased between the two points in time, the frequency of each cause for keratoplasty did not change significantly. The majority of keratoplasties were performed due to corneal disease, and glaucoma drainage devices made up a small portion of reasons for keratoplasty (2005-2006, 4.29%; 2015-2016, 5.68%). Conclusions: The frequency of glaucoma drainage devices as a reason for keratoplasty has not changed significantly between 10 years in this tertiary care setting. Patients with glaucoma drainage devices who later required keratoplasty had associated features including multiple surgical procedures and co-morbid infection, pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, Fuchs dystrophy, PXE, uveitis, and congenital glaucoma.

KW - corneal graft

KW - corneal transplant

KW - glaucoma

KW - glaucoma drainage device

KW - keratoplasty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071225440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071225440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001340

DO - 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001340

M3 - Article

C2 - 31393312

AN - SCOPUS:85071225440

JO - Journal of Glaucoma

JF - Journal of Glaucoma

SN - 1057-0829

ER -