Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 5.
Published in final edited form as: Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar;27(2):132–139. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000237

Glaucoma management after corneal transplantation surgeries

Helen L Kornmann 1, Steven J Gedde 1
PMCID: PMC5584078  NIHMSID: NIHMS896053  PMID: 26595847

Abstract

Purpose of review

Intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation and glaucoma progression following corneal transplantation, specifically, penetrating keratoplasty, Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty, and Boston keratoprosthesis, are well described causes of ocular morbidity. Depending on the procedure performed, the incidence of glaucoma is highly variable. Several etiologic factors have been identified, the most common being synechial angle closure and corticosteroid-induced IOP elevation. The purpose of this review is to describe the various treatment strategies for glaucoma following corneal transplantation.

Recent findings

Medications and laser treatments are usually first-line therapies for postoperative IOP elevation. Surgical intervention, including filtering surgery and glaucoma drainage devices, may be necessary to control IOP and prevent progressive glaucomatous damage.

Summary

Glaucoma is a common complication of corneal transplantation, and the degree of aggressiveness is often related to the indication for corneal surgery. Although postoperative IOP elevation may be controlled with medical therapy alone, refractory cases may require glaucoma surgery. In all cases, early detection and intervention are necessary to optimize patient outcomes.

Keywords: corneal transplant, glaucoma, medical and surgical management

INTRODUCTION

Glaucoma is a well known complication following various corneal transplantation surgeries. Diagnosis can be difficult, particularly when accurate intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements cannot be obtained and assessments of the optic nerve and/or visual field testing are not possible. Multiple studies have documented that preoperative glaucoma is a major risk factor for the development of postkeratoplasty pressure elevation [1–4]. Patients with peripheral anterior synechiae preoperatively are also at a higher risk of developing glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty [5], suggesting that preexisting angle distortion and compression could contribute to elevated IOP after corneal transplant [6]. Uncontrolled IOP is also an important risk factor for endothelial cell loss, and postkeratoplasty glaucoma represents the second leading cause of graft failure after rejection [7–10]. Detecting glaucoma early in these patients can lead to fewer complications and improved patient outcomes.

GLAUCOMA AFTER PENETRATING KERATOPLASTY

Incidence, risk factors, and pathogenesis

The incidence of glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty reportedly ranges from 5.5 to 31% in the early postoperative period [1,11–13] and from 17 to 35% in the late postoperative period [1,5,6,14]. The presence of preoperative glaucoma is the strongest risk factor for the development of postkeratoplasty glaucoma [1,2,5]. However, the indication for corneal transplant also affects the incidence of post-penetrating keratoplasty glaucoma, which occurs more frequently in eyes with aphakic bullous keratopathy and less frequently in Fuchs’ corneal dystrophy and keratoconus [2,4,11,14]. Keratoplasties combined with other surgical procedures have also been associated with the need for surgical glaucoma intervention [15].

The leading causes of glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty are synechial angle closure, with the degree of closure strongly correlated with subsequent glaucoma surgery [16], and corticosteroid-induced elevation in IOP [4,11,17]. Other factors, include iridocorneal angle collapse, postoperative inflammation, iatrogenic injury to the angle, and vitreous prolapse into the angle [6,11,18]. The cause of corneal disease also affects glaucoma progression, with penetrating keratoplasty performed for Fuchs’ corneal dystrophy and keratoconus associated with a lower risk of progression than those indicated for herpetic infection, corneal ulcers, or corneal perforation [11,19,20].

Intraocular pressure measurement after penetrating keratoplasty

Following penetrating keratoplasty, surface irregularities, scarring, and increased corneal thickness often prevent precise IOP measurements [21]. Early in the postoperative period, IOP can be measured by the Mackay-Marg electronic applanation tonometer, pneumatic applanation tonometer, Tono-Pen, or dynamic contour tonometer (DCT), as these instruments measure IOP independent of corneal thickness within certain ranges of IOP [22]. If the corneal graft surface is smooth with an intact epithelium and regular mires can be obtained, Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) can be used. The iCare, a handheld rebound tonometer, has shown good correlation with GAT and other tonometers in healthy and glaucomatous eyes [23–26] but significantly underestimates GAT IOP in postpenetrating keratoplasty eyes [27].

Medical therapy

Most eyes that develop postpenetrating keratoplasty glaucoma respond positively to medical therapy [5,13,14,28], and it remains the first-line treatment for elevated IOP after penetrating keratoplasty. The effect of topical glaucoma therapy on graft survival remains unclear. Some studies suggest that pilocarpine, topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, prostaglandin analogs, and adrenergic agents cause higher rates of graft failure [29], whereas other studies report no difference with respect to medication used [5].

In cases of corticosteroid-responsive glaucoma, the dose of steroids may be tapered to the minimum required. Alternatively, potent IOP elevating agents, such as prednisolone or dexamethasone, can be replaced by corticosteroids that have a decreased tendency to increase IOP, such as fluorometholone, loteprednol, and rimexolone [30].

Laser therapy

In some instances, laser trabeculoplasty may be beneficial for treating elevated IOP after penetrating keratoplasty. Van Meter et al. [31] reported a 29.7% mean reduction in IOP 2 years after argon laser trabeculoplasty after penetrating keratoplasty, and Nakakura et al. [32] reported a case of selective laser trabeculoplasty after penetrating keratoplasty resulting in an IOP of 18 mmHg 6 months after surgery with adjunctive use of latanoprost (0.005%). However, the long-term effects of laser trabeculoplasty tend to diminish over time, and may therefore have limited utility.

Cyclodestructive procedures

Cyclodestructive procedures used to control IOP after penetrating keratoplasty, include cyclocryotherapy, Nd:YAG laser cyclophotocoagulation (CPC), diode laser CPC, transpupillary argon laser photocoagulation, and endoscopic CPC. CPC is especially useful for eyes that have undergone multiple ocular procedures with severe conjunctival scarring and poor visual potential. However, cyclodestructive procedures are also associated with a higher incidence of graft failure, hypotony, and visual loss [33,34] and may also produce phthisis bulbi [22]. Therefore, these procedures are often reserved for patients who have failed all other interventions.

Surgical management

Trabeculectomy has been performed in patients with previous penetrating keratoplasty; however success rates are highly variable, ranging from 20 to 80% [35,36]. Conventional trabeculectomy is usually not effective if there is perilimbal conjunctival scarring, and trabeculectomy without antimetabolites after penetrating keratoplasty has been reported to have up to a 50% increased risk of failure at 3 years, with 90% of these occurring within the first 6 months of surgery [35]. Adjunctive antimetabolite use has significantly improved success. Ayyala et al. [37] reported a 76.5% (13 of 17 eyes) success rate for trabeculectomy with mitomycin C (MMC) after penetrating keratoplasty during a mean follow-up of 23 months.

Kirkness et al. [38] was the first to report the use of glaucoma drainage devices (GDDs) in patients with glaucoma following penetrating keratoplasty. GDDs have become important methods for controlling IOP in refractory cases [39–41], and the reported success rates up to 1 year after GDD implantation range from 74 to 92% [40–42]. Almousa et al. [43] described Ahmed glaucoma valve (New World Medical Inc., Rancho Cucamonga, California, USA) implantation in 59 eyes with high-risk penetrating keratoplasty, including corneal neovascularization, repeat grafts, large grafts, bilateral grafts, past or present inflammatory eye disease, past or present elevated IOP, history of anterior segment surgery, younger age, ocular surface disease, and many quadrants of anterior synechiae. Success was achieved in 44 eyes (75.8%) during an average follow-up of 78 months. Corneal graft survival was 87% at 1 year, but declined to 47% by 5 years of follow-up.

Graft survival after glaucoma surgery

Glaucoma surgery is associated with a shorter time to graft rejection, a greater likelihood of multiple rejection episodes, and a greater chance of graft failure when compared with nonglaucomatous and medically treated eyes [10,44]. The use of antimetabolites that are toxic to the corneal endothelium [45] combined with a decrease in endothelial cell density after intraocular surgery may lead to endothelial failure [36]. Glaucomatous eyes also have higher levels of proinflammatory cytokines in the aqueous humor compared with nonglaucomatous eyes [46], and the aqueous inflammatory response in primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) is elevated in eyes with previous cataract or glaucoma surgery compared with eyes treated medically [47▪▪]. A breach of the blood-aqueous barrier would be expected to result in a similar rate of graft failure in eyes with previous trabeculectomy and GDD.

Drainage tubes can also damage the corneal endothelium via direct contact [48] or by acting as a conduit for the retrograde passage of inflammatory cells into the anterior chamber [38]. Arroyave et al. [41] identified placement of the drainage tube in the anterior chamber as being 12 times more likely to result in earlier graft failure, although Almousa et al. [43] did not find this association. The risk of rejection appears to be similar between valved and nonvalved devices [22]. The timing of GDD implantation on corneal graft survival has also been evaluated, although the results are inconclusive. Some studies have shown improved graft survival when the implant is placed prior to or during penetrating keratoplasty [49,50], whereas others have shown no association [41,42]. The 10-year results of the Cornea Donor Study [51] reported that a history of glaucoma, particularly when prior glaucoma surgery had been performed, was also associated with graft failure.

GLAUCOMA AFTER DESCEMET’S STRIPPING ENDOTHELIAL KERATOPLASTY

Incidence, risk factors, and pathogenesis

Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) has been performed with increasing frequency in recent years [52] by virtue of its advantages over full–thickness keratoplasty, including accelerated healing, more predictable refractive outcomes, improved corneal integrity, and rapid visual recovery [53–56]. Although the initial expectations were that DSEK would also offer lower risks of postoperative ocular hypertension, the factors that generate high IOP after penetrating keratoplasty may also apply to DSEK. The incidence of post-DSEK ocular hypertension is reportedly between 29 and 47% [56–63], and the incidence is even higher in patients with preexisting glaucoma, with estimates ranging from 43 to 54% [56,57]. Indeed, ocular hypertension is the most frequently reported complication following DSEK, exceeding graft dislocation [64–66], rejection [67,68], and endothelial failure [52].

The most common cause of glaucoma after DSEK is corticosteroid-induced elevation in IOP [56,63], although chronic angle closure, inflammation, and graft rejection are other potential causes [13,56,69]. A retrospective study by Allen et al. [57] reported that a previous history of glaucoma was associated with a 2.4 times greater chance of developing post-DSEK IOP elevation. Additionally, eyes with preoperative glaucoma or undergoing additional intraoperative procedures during DSEK, such as phacoemulsification, synechiolysis, anterior chamber intraocular lens exchange, or vitrectomy, were more likely to require an escalation of glaucoma therapy [61]. Chan et al. [62] identified glaucoma in the fellow eye, postoperative complications or procedures, and age less than 60 years as additional risk factors for the development of post-DSEK ocular hypertension. These risk factors may reflect more severe angle damage and compromised trabecular outflow, increased intraocular inflammation altering trabecular function, and a tendency for corticosteroid responsiveness in younger individuals. Unlike penetrating keratoplasty, the surgical indication for DSEK does not appear to influence the risk of postoperative ocular hypertension [62].

In the early postoperative period, air trapped behind the pupil may lead to pupillary block and a significant elevation in IOP. Although pupillary block is an uncommon occurrence, it can lead to significant complications, including graft failure and peripheral anterior synechiae with subsequent chronic angle closure glaucoma [70,71].

Intraocular pressure measurement after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty

One factor to consider in postoperative DSEK management is the accuracy of IOP measurements following surgery. The average preoperative thickness of a DSEK graft is approximately 100–200 µm, and most eyes with DSEK grafts have a central corneal thickness near 700 µm [71–73]. Although corneal thickness affects the accuracy of GAT, DCT has been shown to be less dependent on corneal thickness and shape. Two studies [72,73] assessing the effect of increased corneal thickness on IOP measurements from GAT and DCT suggest good correlation between both methods following DSEK. Increased corneal thickness did not appear to result in falsely elevated IOP measurements, and IOPs measured by GAT should not be corrected for a postoperative increase in corneal thickness, as this could miss a truly elevated IOP.

Medical therapy

Topical glaucoma medications are usually the initial therapy for elevated IOP in post-DSEK eyes. Vajaranant et al. [56] reported that after DSEK, only one out of 315 (0.3%) patients without and seven of 85 (8%) patients with preexisting glaucoma required glaucoma surgery; most patients were treated medically. Maier et al. [63] also found that medical therapy sufficiently controlled IOP elevation after DSEK, which occurred in 23 eyes (39%). In this study, however, the criterion for IOP success was not defined and progression of glaucoma by optic nerve head changes or visual field loss was not evaluated.

Other studies have observed a higher failure rate of medical therapy alone to control IOP after DSEK. Chan et al. [62] reported that two years after DSEK, 15 of 51 eyes (29.4%) required trabeculectomy with MMC. The higher rates of surgical intervention reported in this study may relate to the fact that high-potency corticosteroids were continued in the face of elevated IOP to reduce the risk of graft rejection and failure.

Laser therapy

Early in the postoperative period, IOP elevation may occur because of pupillary block via air migration behind the iris [74,75]. An inferior iridotomy preoperatively, or an iridectomy performed intraoperatively, can avoid this potential complication.

Surgical management

Studies evaluating outcomes for glaucoma surgery after DSEK are limited. The surgical options for glaucoma after DSEK are similar to those for penetrating keratoplasty and include trabeculectomy with MMC and GDD implantation. Quek et al. [61] investigated the effect of DSEK on IOP control in Asian eyes with preexisting glaucoma or ocular hypertension and found that 62% of eyes required an increase in IOP lowering medical therapy and 28% needed filtration surgery. Eyes with no history of filtration surgery or that underwent additional intraoperative procedures during DSEK were 10 to 18 times more likely to require IOP-lowering treatment after DSEK (P = 0.002, P = 0.005), respectively.

Surgical outcomes following glaucoma surgery may be more favorable in those who have had previous DSEK compared with penetrating keratoplasty. Boey et al. [76] compared outcomes of trabeculectomy with MMC after DSEK versus penetrating keratoplasty. The DSEK group achieved a 70.1% mean IOP reduction compared with 55.6% in the penetrating keratoplasty group. The proportion of patients who achieved an IOP less than 12 mmHg was also significantly higher in the DSEK group (80.0 versus 43.9%, P = 0.03). The rates of graft failure arising after trabeculectomy with MMC were similar between the two groups at approximately 10%.

There are concerns about performing DSEK after previous glaucoma surgery centered on the difficulty in obtaining a complete anterior chamber air fill. Phillips et al. [58] reported a 14% (5 of 34 eyes) dislocation rate in patients undergoing DSEK after glaucoma surgery; four of the five dislocations occurred in eyes with hypotony. On the other hand, Wiaux et al. [59] found a slightly lower dislocation rate (7.1%) in eyes with previous glaucoma surgery. A similar dislocation rate of 7.8% (36 of 462 procedures) was reported by Aldave et al. [77▪▪] with no significant difference between the groups with and without previous glaucoma surgery. These results suggest that occluding the lumen of a tube shunt, as has been suggested previously [78], might unnecessarily place an eye with advanced glaucoma at increased risk for intra or postoperative pressure spikes. Moreover, a relatively low dislocation rate also argues against the need for suture closure of an iridectomy to obtain a sufficiently tense air fill and ensure attachment of the donor DSEK button.

GLAUCOMA AFTER BOSTON KERATOPROSTHESIS

Incidence, risk factors, and pathogenesis

Indications for the Boston type I keratoprosthesis (B-KPro; Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, USA) have expanded rapidly over the last decade [79], but the high incidence and fast progression of glaucoma after B-KPro implantation presents an ongoing challenge. The incidence of glaucoma prior to B-KPro is reportedly between 36 and 76% [79,80▪,81–88], and many of these eyes are already receiving maximal medical therapy or have had glaucoma surgical intervention. Progression of preexisting glaucoma after B-KPro implantation has been estimated to be as high as 25% [83] with the fastest rates of progression occurring in patients requiring keratoprosthesis for corneal burns, and the slowest in those with no history of prior corneal surgery [80▪]. Additionally, de novo glaucoma occurring after B-KPro has been reported to range from 2 to 28% [79,80▪,81,82,84, 85,89,90].

The mechanisms of glaucoma after B-KPro implantation are multifactorial and related to damage to the anterior chamber angle. Iridocorneal adhesions with progressive shallowing of the angle [91] and inflammatory debris obstructing the trabecular meshwork [80▪] have been demonstrated. Crowding of the anterior segment by the large B-Kpro backplate can also compromise the angle, and if a patient is left aphakic or if the iris is removed, the trabecular meshwork scaffold can collapse and become distorted [92]. The chronic use of topical corticosteroids prior to placement of the B-KPro may also lead to corticosteroid-induced glaucoma [93].

Intraocular pressure measurement after Boston keratoprosthesis

Globe palpation is the most commonly employed method of estimating IOP after keratoprosthesis implantation because the rigidity of the large backplate precludes an accurate measurement of IOP by standard tonometers [93]. Finger tension has been established as an accurate method for detecting IOPs of 30 mmHg or more, particularly when performed by practiced observers [94–96]. However, the intrinsic inaccuracy and lack of interexaminer reliability are additional challenges in the management of these patients.

Cyclodestructive procedures

CPC can be performed at the time of, or subsequent to, B-KPro placement [84,89,97,98]. Rivier et al. [89] reported the results of 18 eyes with B-KPro undergoing diode transscleral CPC, 13 of which were performed after previously implanted GDDs failed to adequately control IOP. In this study, normal IOP (estimated 10–21 mmHg) was achieved in 12 eyes (67%) with or without the use of adjunctive medications. The utility of CPC may be particularly applicable to B-KPro eyes that may have a higher risk of complications from GDD or that have uncontrolled IOP despite prior GDD placement.

Surgical management

The high incidence and severity of glaucoma has prompted a low threshold for performing glaucoma surgery either prior to or simultaneously with B-KPro implantation [90,93]. However, there is no consensus regarding the timing or type of glaucoma surgery. In a study by Kamyar et al. [83], 93% of eyes receiving B-KPro with no previous glaucoma surgery developed postoperative IOP elevation, whereas 47% with prior glaucoma surgery did not. This suggested a reduced risk of progression in those with aggressive perioperative management of glaucoma. Panarelli et al. [99] reported prophylactic pars plana vitrectomy and GDD placement prior to B-KPro implantation in eyes not already diagnosed with glaucoma. Postoperatively, these eyes maintained open angles and a normal IOP without adverse outcomes up to 18 months after surgery. More recently, Huh et al. [100▪] evaluated outcomes of combined pars plana GDD and B-KPro, and 65% of patients achieved an IOP less than or equal to 20 mmHg by scleral pneumotonometry after 31.6 months of follow-up. The authors also reported a lower risk of GDD-related complications with pars plana tube placement. Crnej et al. [80▪] also found that eyes with glaucoma surgery performed before or during B-KPro implantation developed disc cupping at a significantly lower rate than those with glaucoma surgery performed after B-KPro implantation (P = 0.013; P = 0.001; Wilcoxon test).

However, the judiciousness of empiric GDD placement is not without debate. Robert et al. [88] compared the loss of best-corrected visual acuity in patients receiving B-KPro alone versus combined with GDD implantation. In the combined group, there was an increased risk of glaucoma progression (22%), tube occlusion resulting in IOP spikes (22%), or choroidal hemorrhage (17%), and best-corrected visual acuity loss was nearly double the rate of vision loss in the B-KPro alone group. Li et al. [101] also reported a positive correlation of GDD-related complications and vision loss, including GDD erosions in 10 of 17 eyes (58.8%). The postoperative use of a bandage contact lens to prevent desiccation of donor corneal tissues was also found to heighten the risk of GDD erosions, likely as the result of mechanical contact [101].

The above data may suggest that in patients without signs or a history of glaucoma prior to B-KPro, GDD implantation could be deferred until definitive evidence of glaucomatous damage develops, given the significant attendant risks. It should be noted, however, that glaucoma surgery following B-KPro implantation can be more challenging, since ensuring an adequate shave of the vitreous base for pars plana tube placement is difficult when the optical viewing area is limited to 3 mm. Conversely, in patients already diagnosed with glaucoma and in whom glaucoma surgery has not yet been performed, glaucoma surgery may best be performed prior to or simultaneously with B-KPro implantation, since progression can occur rapidly in these very damaged eyes and further compromise long-term visual rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

Glaucoma is a well known complication following corneal transplantation. Depending on the underlying corneal disorder and surgery performed, glaucoma can be both aggressive and refractory to medical and surgical treatment. Irregularities in the corneal surface and media opacities often prevent accurate IOP measurements and/or reliable assessments of the optic nerve and visual field. Although these cases can be challenging for clinicians, early detection and a low threshold for glaucoma treatment can ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes.

KEY POINTS.

  • Elevations in intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression are significant causes of ocular morbidity following corneal transplant surgery.

  • Although medications and laser therapy are usually first-line treatments, surgical therapy may be necessary to prevent glaucomatous damage.

  • Glaucoma following corneal transplant surgery may be difficult to detect and monitor, but having a low threshold for treatment may ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes.

Acknowledgments

Financial support and sponsorship

Supported by National Institutes of Health Center Core Grant P30EY014801 and Research to Prevent Blindness Unrestricted Grant.

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

▪ of special interest

▪▪ of outstanding interest

  • 1.Karadag O, Kugu S, Erdogan G, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for increased intraocular pressure after penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2010;29:278–282. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181b6eb9e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kirkness CM, Ficker LA. Risk factors for the development of postkeratoplasty glaucoma. Cornea. 1992;11:427–432. doi: 10.1097/00003226-199209000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kirkness CM, Moshegov C. Postkeratoplasty glaucoma. Eye. 1988;2(Suppl):S19–S26. doi: 10.1038/eye.1988.130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Simmons RB, Stern RA, Teekhasaenee C, et al. Elevated intraocular pressure following penetrating keratoplasty. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1989;87:79–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Huber KK, Maier AK, Klamann MK, et al. Glaucoma in penetrating keratoplasty: risk factors, management and outcome. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:105–116. doi: 10.1007/s00417-012-2065-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Olson RJ, Kaufman HE. A mathematical description of causative factors and prevention of elevated intraocular pressure after keratoplasty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1977;16:1085–1092. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Irvine AR, Kaufman HE. Intraocular pressure following penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1969;68:835–844. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(69)94577-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mayer DJ, Casey TA. Corneal grafting: principles and practice. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1984. Glaucoma and corneal grafting; pp. 325–330. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thoft RA, Gordon JM, Dohlman CH. Glaucoma following keratoplasty. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1974;78:352–364. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Aldave AJ, Rudd JC, Cohen EJ, et al. The role of glaucoma therapy in the need for repeat penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2000;19:772–776. doi: 10.1097/00003226-200011000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Goldberg DB, Schanzlin DJ, Brown SI. Incidence of increased intraocular pressure after keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1981;92:372–377. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(81)90527-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Karesh JW, Nirankari VS. Factors associated with glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 1983;96:160–164. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)77783-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wilson SE, Kaufman HE. Graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty. Surv Ophthalmol. 1990;34:325–356. doi: 10.1016/0039-6257(90)90110-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Foulks GN. Glaucoma associated with penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1987;94:871–874. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(87)33542-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Franca ET, Arcieri ES, Arcieri RS, et al. A study of glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2002;21:284–288. doi: 10.1097/00003226-200204000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lass JH, Pavan-Langston D. Timolol therapy in secondary angle-closure glaucoma post penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1979;86:51–59. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(79)35545-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Byrd S, Tayeri T. Glaucoma associated with penetrating keratoplasty. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1999;39:17–28. doi: 10.1097/00004397-199903930-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.McDonnell PJ, Robin JB, Schanzlin DJ, et al. Molteno implant for control of glaucoma in eyes after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1988;95:364–369. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(88)33187-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Erdurmus M, Cohen EJ, Yildiz EH, et al. Steroid-induced intraocular pressure elevation or glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus or Fuchs dystrophy. Cornea. 2009;28:759–764. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181967318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Williams KA, Muehlberg SM, Lewis RF, Coster DJ. How successful is corneal transplantation? A report from the Australian Corneal Graft Register. Eye (Lond) 1995;9:219–227. doi: 10.1038/eye.1995.43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Reinhard T, Kallmann C, Cepin A, et al. The influence of glaucoma history on graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1997;235:553–557. doi: 10.1007/BF00947083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dada T, Aggarwal A, Minudath KB, et al. Postpenetrating keratoplasty glaucoma. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008;56:269–277. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.41410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Castillo A, et al. Reproducibility and clinical evaluation of rebound tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4578–4580. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, et al. Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:2156–2162. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.06.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nakamura M, Darhad U, Tatsumi Y, et al. Agreement of rebound tonometer in measuring intraocular pressure with three types of applanation tonometers. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;142:332–334. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.02.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, et al. Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2006;15:213–217. doi: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000212208.87523.66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Miani F, et al. Comparison of iCare tonometer and Goldmann applanation tonometry in normal corneas and in eyes with automated lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty. Eye (Lond) 2011;25:642–650. doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sihota R, Sharma N, Panda A, et al. Postpenetrating keratoplasty glaucoma: risk factors, management and visual outcome. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1998;26:305–309. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.1998.tb01334.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Greenlee EC, Kwon YH. Graft failure: III. Glaucoma escalation after penetrating keratoplasty. Int Ophthalmol. 2008;28:191–207. doi: 10.1007/s10792-008-9223-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Razeghinejad MR, Katz LJ. Steroid-induced iatrogenic glaucoma. Ophthalmic Res. 2012;47:66–80. doi: 10.1159/000328630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Van Meter WS, Allen RC, Waring GO, 3rd, et al. Laser trabeculoplasty for glaucoma in aphakic and pseudophakic eyes after penetrating keratoplasty. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106:185–188. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1988.01060130195023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nakakura S, Imamura H, Nakamura T. Selective laser trabeculoplasty for glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:e404–e406. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318199d226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ayyala RS. Penetrating keratoplasty and glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;45:91–105. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6257(00)00141-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rumelt S, Bersudsky V, Blum-Hareuveni T, et al. Preexisting and postoperative glaucoma in repeated corneal transplantation. Cornea. 2002;21:759–765. doi: 10.1097/00003226-200211000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gilvarry AM, Kirkness CM, Steele AD, et al. The management of postkeratoplasty glaucoma by trabeculectomy. Eye (Lond) 1989;3:713–718. doi: 10.1038/eye.1989.110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ficker LA, Kirkness CM, Steele AD, et al. Intraocular surgery following penetrating keratoplasty: the risks and advantages. Eye (Lond) 1990;4:693–697. doi: 10.1038/eye.1990.97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ayyala RS, Pieroth L, Vinals AF, et al. Comparison of mitomycin C trabeculectomy, glaucoma drainage device implantation, and laser neodymium:YAG cyclophotocoagulation in the management of intractable glaucoma after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1550–1556. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(98)98046-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kirkness CM, Ling Y, Rice NS. The use of silicone drainage tubing to control postkeratoplasty glaucoma. Eye (Lond) 1988;2(Pt 5):583–590. doi: 10.1038/eye.1988.109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Al-Torbak AA. Outcome of combined Ahmed glaucoma valve implant and penetrating keratoplasty in refractory congenital glaucoma with corneal opacity. Cornea. 2004;23:554–559. doi: 10.1097/01.ico.0000122704.49054.95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Al-Torbak A. Graft survival and glaucoma outcome after simultaneous penetrating keratoplasty and ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Cornea. 2003;22:194–197. doi: 10.1097/00003226-200304000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Arroyave CP, Scott IU, Fantes FE, et al. Corneal graft survival and intraocular pressure control after penetrating keratoplasty and glaucoma drainage device implantation. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1978–1985. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00803-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Alvarenga LS, Mannis MJ, Brandt JD, et al. The long-term results of keratoplasty in eyes with a glaucoma drainage device. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:200–205. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.02.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Almousa R, Nanavaty MA, Daya SM, et al. Intraocular pressure control and corneal graft survival after implantation of Ahmed valve device in high-risk penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2013;32:1099–1104. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31828d2a17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Banitt M, Lee RK. Management of patients with combined glaucoma and corneal transplant surgery. Eye (Lond) 2009;23:1972–1979. doi: 10.1038/eye.2008.377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dreyer EB, Chaturvedi N, Zurakowski D. Effect of mitomycin C and fluorouracil-supplemented trabeculectomies on the anterior segment. Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113:578–580. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1995.01100050044028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Chua J, Vania M, Cheung CM, et al. Expression profile of inflammatory cytokines in aqueous from glaucomatous eyes. Mol Vis. 2012;18:431–438. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47▪▪.Engel LA, Muether PS, Fauser S, et al. The effect of previous surgery and topical eye drops for primary open-angle glaucoma on cytokine expression in aqueous humor. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;252:791–799. doi: 10.1007/s00417-014-2607-5. The prospective consecutive case study of patients with POAG after previous cataract and/or glaucoma surgery found that POAG is associated with an aqueous inflammatory response that was significantly more elevated in eyes with previous surgery. The results suggest that filtration surgery may have a higher success rate in eyes that have not undergone previous surgery. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Topouzis F, Coleman AL, Choplin N, et al. Follow-up of the original cohort with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:198–204. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(99)00080-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kwon YH, Taylor JM, Hong S, et al. Long-term results of eyes with penetrating keratoplasty and glaucoma drainage tube implant. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:272–278. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00496-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Beebe WE, Starita RJ, Fellman RL, et al. The use of Molteno implant and anterior chamber tube shunt to encircling band for the treatment of glaucoma in keratoplasty patients. Ophthalmology. 1990;97:1414–1422. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32393-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Writing Committee for the Cornea Donor Study Research Group. Sugar A, Gal RL, Kollman C, et al. Factors associated with corneal graft survival in the cornea donor study. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:246–254. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.3923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Price FW, Jr, Price MO. Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 50 eyes: a refractive neutral corneal transplant. J Refract Surg. 2005;21:339–345. doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-20050701-07. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gorovoy MS. Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2006;25:886–889. doi: 10.1097/01.ico.0000214224.90743.01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Price MO, Fairchild KM, Price DA, et al. Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty five-year graft survival and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:725–729. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Terry MA, Shamie N, Chen ES, et al. Endothelial keratoplasty a simplified technique to minimize graft dislocation, iatrogenic graft failure, and pupillary block. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1179–1186. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Vajaranant TS, Price MO, Price FW, et al. Visual acuity and intraocular pressure after Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with and without preexisting glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1644–1650. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.05.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Allen MB, Lieu P, Mootha VV, et al. Risk factors for intraocular pressure elevation after descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Eye Contact Lens. 2010;36:223–227. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181e6ae30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Phillips PM, Terry MA, Shamie N, et al. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with previous trabeculectomy and tube shunt procedures: intraoperative and early postoperative complications. Cornea. 2010;29:534–540. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181c11bf3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wiaux C, Baghdasaryan E, Lee OL, et al. Outcomes after Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty in glaucoma patients with previous trabeculectomy and tube shunt implantation. Cornea. 2011;30:1304–1311. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182114297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kim P, Amiran MD, Lichtinger A, et al. Outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in patients with previous glaucoma drainage device insertion. Cornea. 2012;31:172–175. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318224820a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Quek DT, Wong T, Tan D, et al. Corneal graft survival and intraocular pressure control after descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in eyes with preexisting glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152:48–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.01.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Chan EW, Wong TT, Htoon HM, et al. De novo ocular hypertension after Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty: comparative 3-year incidence, risk factors, and outcomes. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:1829–1841. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S50584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Maier AK, Klamann MK, Torun N, et al. Intraocular pressure elevation and post-DSEK glaucoma after Descemet‘s stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:1191–1198. doi: 10.1007/s00417-012-2203-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Clements JL, Bouchard CS, Lee WB, et al. Retrospective review of graft dislocation rate associated with descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty after primary failed penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2011;30:414–418. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181f7f163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Jangi AA, Ritterband DC, Wu EI, et al. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty after failed penetrating keratoplasty. Cornea. 2012;31:1148–1153. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823f78b3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Goshe JM, Terry MA, Li JY, et al. Graft dislocation and hypotony after Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in patients with previous glaucoma surgery. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1130–1133. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Price MO, Jordan CS, Moore G, Price FW., Jr Graft rejection episodes after Descemet stripping with endothelial keratoplasty: part two: the statistical analysis of probability and risk factors. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:391–395. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.140038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wu EI, Ritterband DC, Yu G, et al. Graft rejection following descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: features, risk factors, and outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:949–957. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Polack FM. Graft rejection and glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1986;101:294–297. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(86)90822-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Lee JS, Desai NR, Schmidt GW, et al. Secondary angle closure caused by air migrating behind the pupil in descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea. 2009;28:652–656. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318191b883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Banitt MR, Chopra V. Descemet’s stripping with automated endothelial keratoplasty and glaucoma. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2010;21:144–149. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283360b95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Vajaranant TS, Price MO, Price FW, et al. Intraocular pressure measurements following Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:780–786. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Bochmann F, Kaufmann C, Becht C, et al. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with Goldmann applanation tonometry following Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2009;226:241–244. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1109242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Koenig SB, Covert DJ. Early results of small-incision Descemet’s stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:221–226. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.07.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Lee WB, Jacobs DS, Musch DC, et al. Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1818–1830. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Boey PY, Mehta JS, Ho CL, et al. Outcomes of trabeculectomy after descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: a comparison with penetrating keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:1091–1098. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77▪▪.Aldave AJ, Chen JL, Zaman AS, et al. Outcomes after DSEK in 101 eyes with previous trabeculectomy and tube shunt implantation. Cornea. 2014;33:223–229. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000028. The retrospective review is the largest series to date to report the outcomes of DSEK in eyes with previous glaucoma surgery. Although previous glaucoma surgery may result in improved IOP control postoperatively, elevated IOP is a common occurrence in eyes with or without a history of glaucoma and therefore should be monitored as closely after DSEK as it is after traditional penetrating keratoplasty. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Riaz KM, Sugar J, Tu EY, et al. Early results of Descemet-stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in patients with glaucoma drainage devices. Cornea. 2009;28:959–962. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31819c4e2c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Aldave AJ, Kamal KM, Vo RC, et al. The Boston type I keratoprosthesis: improving outcomes and expanding indications. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:640–651. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80▪.Crnej A, Paschalis EI, Salvador-Culla B, et al. Glaucoma progression and role of glaucoma surgery in patients with Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2014;33:349–354. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000067. Glaucoma onset and progression after B-KPro implantation were evaluated in this retrospective study. In total, 66% of the eyes had glaucoma preoperatively, and 26% developed de novo glaucoma after B-KPro implantation. The aggressive nature of glaucoma after B-KPro suggests that glaucoma surgery before or concomitant with B-KPro implantation should be considered. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Bradley JC, Hernandez EG, Schwab IR, et al. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: the university of california davis experience. Cornea. 2009;28:321–327. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31818b8bfa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Chew HF, Ayres BD, Hammersmith KM, et al. Boston keratoprosthesis outcomes and complications. Cornea. 2009;28:989–996. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181a186dc. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Kamyar R, Weizer JS, de Paula FH, et al. Glaucoma associated with Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2012;31:134–139. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31820f7a32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Netland PA, Terada H, Dohlman CH. Glaucoma associated with keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:751–757. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(98)94034-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Patel AP, Wu EI, Ritterband DC, et al. Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis: the New York Eye and Ear experience. Eye (Lond) 2012;26:418–425. doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Talajic JC, Agoumi Y, Gagne S, et al. Prevalence, progression, and impact of glaucoma on vision after Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153:267–274. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.07.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Aldave AJ, Sangwan VS, Basu S, et al. International results with the Boston type I keratoprosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:1530–1538. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Robert MC, Pomerleau V, Harissi-Dagher M. Complications associated with Boston keratoprosthesis type 1 and glaucoma drainage devices. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:573–577. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Rivier D, Paula JS, Kim E, et al. Glaucoma and keratoprosthesis surgery: role of adjunctive cyclophotocoagulation. J Glaucoma. 2009;18:321–324. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181815485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Zerbe BL, Belin MW, Ciolino JB, et al. Results from the multicenter Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1779. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Kang JJ, Allemann N, Cruz JD, Cortine MS. Serial analysis of anterior chamber depth and angle status using anterior segment optical coherence tomography after Boston keratoprosthesis. Cornea. 2013;32:1369–1374. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182a0cff5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Kotecha A, White ET, Shewry JM, et al. The relative effects of corneal thickness and age on Goldmann applanation tonometry and dynamic contour tonometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1572–1575. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.075580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Banitt M. Evaluation and management of glaucoma after keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011;22:133–136. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e328343723d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Birnbach CD, Leen MM. Digital palpation of intraocular pressure. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1998;29:754–757. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Baum J, Chaturvedi N, Netland PA, et al. Assessment of intraocular pressure by palpation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;119:650–651. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)70227-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Rubinfeld RS, Cohen EJ, Laibson PR, et al. The accuracy of finger tension for estimating intraocular pressure after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1998;29:213–215. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Akpek EK, Harissi-Dagher M, Petrarca R, et al. Outcomes of Boston keratoprosthesis in aniridia: a retrospective multicenter study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:227–231. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.04.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Tan DT, Tay AB, Theng JT, et al. Keratoprosthesis surgery for end-stage corneal blindness in asian eyes. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:503–510. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.04.065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Panarelli JF, Ko A, Sidoti PA, et al. Angle closure after Boston keratoprosthesis. J Glaucoma. 2013;22:725–729. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e318259b2fc. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100▪.Huh ES, Aref AA, Vajaranant TS, et al. Outcomes of pars plana glaucoma drainage implant in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis surgery. J Glaucoma. 2014;23:e39–e44. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31829e55f8. In this retrospective study, patients undergoing combined pars plana vitrectomy and GDD with B-KPro were followed. Following pars plana placement of a GDD, 85% of patients were found to have normal pressures by digital palpation, and none of the patients experienced conjunctival erosion over the implant or the tube. These findings support the use of a posteriorly placed GDD in conjunction with B-KPro implantation. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Li JY, Greiner MA, Brandt JD, et al. Long-term complications associated with glaucoma drainage devices and Boston keratoprosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152:209–218. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.01.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES