[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.145.220.120. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
April 1988

Long-term Comparison of Epikeratoplasty and Penetrating Keratoplasty for Keratoconus

Author Affiliations

From the Cornea Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, and the Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(4):493-496. doi:10.1001/archopht.1988.01060130539031
Abstract

• The results of epikeratoplasty for keratoconus in ten patients with long-term follow-up (mean, 25 months; range, 19 to 31 months) vs ten patients with contemporaneous penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus (mean, 33 months; range, three to 81 months) indicate a similar level of postoperative spectacle visual acuity (20/32 vs 20/27, respectively) and similar refractive and keratometric results. The healing period until achieving best corrected visual acuity averaged 12 months for epikeratoplasty vs three months for penetrating keratoplasty. Compared with penetrating keratoplasty, epikeratoplasty offers the advantages of maintaining an intact globe surgically and postoperatively in a young, active population, while avoiding potential immune rejection. The major disadvantages are a prolonged healing period and undefined limits in the extent of the cone that would define suitable candidates preoperatively.

×