[Penetrating keratoplasty in XXXX ].

@entity1 @entity227 @entity231 @entity262 @entity726 @entity260 @entity1467 @entity9042 @entity9762
BACKGROUND: Purpose of this retrospective study was to analyze outcome and complications after penetrating keratoplasty (PK) in @entity1 with @entity1467 . @entity1 AND METHODS: The medical records of all @entity1 with @entity1467 and PK from 1985 were reviewed retrospectively. Age, sex, @entity262 , communication, indication for surgery and surgical technique, age at first PK, complications, @entity227 and best corrected @entity227 and findings at last follow-up were noted. Age matched mentally non-retarded @entity1 with @entity9042 and PK served as a control group. RESULTS: All eyes of 9 @entity1 had @entity9042 , 16 were operated. Indication for surgery was spontaneous perforation in 3 and refractive in the remaining 13 eyes. Five grafts were clear at last follow-up. In 7 eyes, at least 1 re-PK had to be performed. Seven eyes developed graft rejection and 4 eyes needed conjunctival grafting because of non-healing epithelial defects. Ten eyes developed @entity231 , 3 secondary @entity726 . In the control group 22 out of 25 operated corneas were clear at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Prognosis of PK in @entity1 with @entity1467 is worse than in other @entity1 with @entity9042 . Poor results are not only explained due to the lack of cooperation of @entity1 , but also because of: 1) high rate of emergency procedures (3/16), 2) presence of lid anomalies and 3) very advanced @entity9042 , necessitating bigger sized grafts, leading to frequent immunological reactions, suture loosening and secondary @entity726 . Indication for PK in @entity1467 @entity1 with @entity9042 and floppy eyelids should be very restrictive. @entity260 and the high rejection rate might be decreased by performing @entity9762 as this would not be an intraocular procedure.
