Penetrating Keratoplasty Performed by Residents | Cornea | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.153.100.128. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Pingree  MFCrandall  ASOlson  RJ Cataract surgery complications in 1 year at an academic institution.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25705- 708PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Smith  JHSeiff  SR Outcomes of resident surgery by residents at a public county hospital.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123448- 454PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Tarbet  KJMamalis  NTheurer  JJones  BDOlson  RJ Complications and results of phacoemulsification performed by residents.  J Cataract Refract Surg. 1995;21661- 665PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Cruz  OAWallace  GWGay  CAMatoba  AYKock  DD Visual results and complications of phacoemulsification with intraocularlens implantation performed by ophthalmology residents.  Ophthalmology. 1992;99448- 452PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Straatsma  BRMeyer  KTBastek  JVLightfoot  DO Posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation by ophthalmology residents:a prospective study of cataract surgery.  Ophthalmology. 1983;90327- 335PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Wiggins  RECobo  MFoulks  GN Results of penetrating keratoplasty by residents.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108851- 853PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Gross  RHPoulsen  EJDavitt  SSchwab  IRMannis  MJ Comparison of astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty by experiencedcornea surgeons and cornea fellows.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123636- 643PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Akpek  EKAltan-Yaycioglu  RKaradayi  KChristen  WStark  WJ Long-term outcomes of combined penetrating keratoplasty with iris-suturedintraocular lens implantation.  Ophthalmology. 2003;1101017- 1022PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
O'Day  DG Glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty. Krachmer  JHMannis  MJHolland  EJeds Cornea. St Louis, Mo Mosby1997;1719- 1730Google Scholar
10.
Mamalis  NAnderson  CWKreisler  KRLundergan  MKOlson  RJ Changing trends in the indications for penetrating keratoplasty.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;1101409- 1411PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Kervick  GNShepherd  WFI Changing indications for penetrating keratoplasty.  Ophthalmic Surg. 1990;21227PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Brightbill  FSBrass  RE Preoperative evaluation of the keratoplasty patient. Krachmer  JHMannis  MJHolland  EJeds Cornea. St Louis, Mo Mosby1997;1563- 1569Google Scholar
13.
Price  FWWhitson  WEMarks  RG Progression of visual acuity after penetrating keratoplasty.  Ophthalmology. 1991;981177- 1185PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Schanzlin  DJRobin  JBGomez  DSGindi  JJSmith  RE Results of penetrating keratoplasty for aphakic and pseudophakic bullouskeratopathy.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;98302- 312PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Stainer  GAPerl  TBinder  PS Controlled reduction of postkeratoplasty astigmatism.  Ophthalmology. 1982;89668- 676PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Ruhswurm  IScholz  UPfleger  TZehetmayer  MHanselmayer  GSkorpik  C Three-year clinical outcome after penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconuswith the guided trephine system.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127666- 673PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Clinch  TEThompson  HWGardner  BPKaufman  SCKaufman  HE An adjustable double running suture technique for keratoplasty.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116201- 206PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Dursun  DForster  RKFeuer  WJ Suturing technique for control of postkeratoplasty astigmatism andmyopia.  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2002;10051- 57PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Karabatsas  CHCook  SDFigueiredo  FC Combined interrupted and continuous versus single continuous adjustablesuturing in penetrating keratoplasty: a prospective, randomized study of inducedastigmatism during the first postoperative year.  Ophthalmology. 1998;1051991- 1998PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Forster  RK A comparison of two selective interrupted suture removal techniquesfor control of post keratoplasty astigmatism.  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1997;95193- 214PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Filatov  VAlexandrakis  GTalamo  JH Comparison of suture-in and suture-out postkeratoplasty astigmatismwith single running suture or combined running and interrupted sutures.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122696- 700PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Davison  JABourne  WM Results of penetrating keratoplasty using a double running suture technique.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1981;991591- 1595PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Foulks  GN Glaucoma associated with penetrating keratoplasty.  Ophthalmology. 1987;94871- 874PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Karesh  JWNirankari  VS Factors associated with glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty.  Am J Ophthalmol. 1983;96160- 164PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Jonas  JBRank  RMHayler  JKBudde  WM Intraocular pressure after homologous penetrating keratoplasty.  J Glaucoma. 2001;1032- 37PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Kirkness  CMFicker  LA Risk factors for the development of postkeratoplasty glaucoma.  Cornea. 1992;11427- 432PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Clinical Sciences
September 2004

Penetrating Keratoplasty Performed by Residents

Author Affiliations

From the Cornea Service, Department of Ophthalmology, California PacificMedical Center, San Francisco. The authors have no relevant financial interestin this article.

Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(9):1333-1336. doi:10.1001/archopht.122.9.1333
Abstract

Objective  To report the results of penetrating keratoplasty performed by residents.

Method  A retrospective medical record review of all patients undergoing penetratingkeratoplasty performed by residents at our institution from April 1998 toApril 2002.

Results  Forty penetrating keratoplasty procedures were performed by 8 residents.The most common indication was keratoconus (17 eyes [43%]), followed by cornealscarring (14 eyes [35%]). Mean preoperative best-corrected visual acuity was20/250. No intraoperative complications were reported. Mean follow-up timewas 15 months. Postoperatively, mean best-corrected visual acuity was 20/40,mean postoperative astigmatism was 3.4 ± 2.1 diopters, and graft survivalwas 92.5%. Postoperative complications included elevated intraocular pressure,wound dehiscence, and endophthalmitis.

Main Outcome Measures  Best-corrected visual acuity, postoperative astigmatism, graft survival,and intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Conclusion  Residents can be introduced to penetrating keratoplasty and achievesurgical success with intraoperative and postoperative complication ratessimilar to those previously published.

×