Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2018 Jul 13;97(28):e11404. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011404

Graft survival rate of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for keratoconus

A meta-analysis

Meng Guan a, Weijia Zhao b, Yang Zhang a, Yu Geng a, Zonghan Chen c, Liuyan Feng d, Dongli Li a, Ling Yuan a,∗
Editor: Kaili Wu
PMCID: PMC6076204  PMID: 29995786

Abstract

Background:

Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) is an optional treatment for patients with keratoconus, and the associated graft survival rate varies. Herein, we aimed to explore the graft survival rate of DALK in patients with keratoconus.

Methods:

PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched to retrieve the related articles. General data, clinical characters, and graft survival rates were obtained directly from the included studies and analyzed by meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of 12 articles were included. The merged 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates were 100% (99.9–100%, P < .001), 92.9% (89.8–95.9%, P < .001), and 90.4% (86.0–0.948%, P < .001), respectively. Lower heterogeneity was shown in each subgroup that was divided neither according to the sample number nor number of surgeons.

Conclusion:

The survival rate slightly decreases year by year, but the overall trend seems relatively stable. Ensuring that all DALK procedures are performed by a single surgeon might be helpful to improve the graft survival rate after surgery.

Keywords: deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, graft survival rate, keratoconus, meta-analysis

1. Introduction

Keratoconus is a progressive eye disease that causes thinning of the cornea and results in mixed vision problems.[1–4] Researchers estimate that the prevalence of keratoconus varies worldwide[5,6] and affects about 1 in 2000 people.[7,8] Keratoconus was first described by the German oculist Burchard Mauchart[9] in 1748 and later understood comprehensively on the basis of the exhaustive 270-page treatise by John Nottingham[10,11] in 1854. It is characterized by noninflammatory thinning of the corneal stroma, irregular astigmatism, myopia, and protrusion, and decrease in visual acuity.[3,12,13] Owing to the complex pathogenesis and early onset, patients with keratoconus who have severe and progressive vision problems or scarring on the cornea have little choice but accept corneal transplantation. Penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) has been used to treated progressive stage keratoplasty for several decades.[14–16] However, in recent years, deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK)[17,18] has been increasingly chosen by patients instead of PKP owing to minimal violation of the intraocular structures and reduced adverse effects of the former. DALK can effectively decrease the failure rates of grafts by retaining patients’ corneal endothelium and reducing immunological rejection post-transplantation.[19] It was reported that the survival rate of endothelial cells after DALK was higher than that of PKP treatment. However, the studies were limited by small sample sizes and varied 5-year survival rates compared with current research reports about DALK. In this article, we explored the graft survival rate of DALK in patients with keratoconus by single factor of meta-analysis.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature research

Different databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials related to DALK. “Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty” OR “DALK,” “keratoconus,” and “graft survival” were used as keywords. The literature retrieval was dated from inception to May 15, 2017. All collected articles were scanned and recruited according to preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any difference of opinion was resolved by a third researcher. As the data included in our study were extracted from published literatures, no ethical approval and patient consent were required.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: Studies related to patients with conical cornea who were treated with deep lamellar keratoplasty (DLKP) were recruited. Different research types like randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, case–control studies, cohort studies, and serial case reports were included. Studies that had data of the 5-year transplant success rate. In case of duplicate publications, studies that were of higher quality and had a more complete outcome were included. The language of the included publication was limited to English and Chinese.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: Studies like letters, notes of meetings, and reviews were excluded. Studies with no exact outcome or those wherein data extraction was not possible were excluded.

2.2. Quality evaluation and data extraction

Quality evaluation tool of literatures was chosen according to different research types. General data including country and year of publication, study design, and study duration were extracted. Definition of graft failure, number of patients, and follow-up information were also extracted. Quality evaluation and data extraction of the included studies were performed and discussed with the third researcher.

2.3. Statistical analysis

The 5-year transplant success rate after DLKP was used as the final indicator for this meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of the recruited studies was analyzed by Cochran Q test and I2 test. The P value of Cochran Q test < 0.05 or I2 value > 50% was indicative of significant heterogeneity, and the random-effect model was used; otherwise, a fixed-effect model was chosen.

3. Results

3.1. Literature research and data extraction

The literature screening process is shown in Fig. 1. A total of 246 articles (167 from PubMed, 40 from Web of Science, and 39 from Embase) were included after searching by the keywords and preliminary screening by the database literature screening tool. After duplicates were automatically removed with Endnote software or manually, 181 articles remained. Then, the titles and abstracts were scanned, 30 articles with only abstract or report of meeting or reviews, 18 case reports, 83 unrelated studies, and 12 articles which were not written in English or Chinese were eliminated. The full text of the remaining 38 articles were screened and 12 studies[20–31] that finally matched the inclusion or exclusion criteria were analyzed in this report.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Literature screening process.

As shown in Table 1, general information and clinical data were abstracted from the 12 recruited articles. All these studies were retrospective research and focused on people of Mongolian and Caucasian ethnicity. Included samples were mainly collected from institutions like hospitals, surgical databases, and National Health Service Blood and Transplant. The duration of these studies were all over 5 years, and the follow-up rates of each study were over 50%.

Table 1.

General information of the included studies.

3.1.

Open in a new tab

3.2. Meta-analysis

3.2.1. One-year graft survival rate

Eleven survival rates of 2241 patients from 9 studies[20,21,23,25,26,28–31] were analyzed in this 1-year graft survival rate analysis. The 1-year graft survival rate of the analyzed articles ranged from 93% to 100%. The merged 1-year graft survival rate of keratoconus patients after treatment with DALK was (95% confidence interval [CI]): 100% [99.9–100%], P < .001) (Fig. 2A). However, the I2 value was 87.7%, which suggested a significant heterogeneity. To confirm the source of heterogeneity, subgroup meta-analysis was further analyzed. No heterogeneity was shown in each subgroup, divided either according to the sample number or number of surgeons (Fig. 2B and C) which indicated that these might be the 2 main reasons of heterogeneity. In subgroup analysis, the merged 1-year graft survival rate of bigger sample number group (>100), 97% (95–98%) P < .001 was lower than the smaller sample number group (<100) (Fig. 2B).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest graph of 1-year graft survival rate. (A) The 1-year graft survival rate of keratoconus patients after treatment with deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in 9 studies. (B) Subgroup analysis of 1-year graft survival rate when studies were divided into 2 groups according to the sample number. (C) Subgroup analysis of 1-year graft survival rate when studies were divided into 2 groups according to the number of surgeons.

3.2.2. Three-year graft survival rate

A total of 2224 patients’ 11 graft survival rates from 9 studies[20,21,23,25,26,28–31] were analyzed. Three years after treatment with DALK, the merged graft survival rate was (95% CI): 92.9% (89.8–95.9%), P < .001 (Fig. 3A). Similar to the 1-year survival rate analysis, significant heterogeneity was observed (I2: 94.2%; P < .001). Sample number and number of surgeons in the entire procedure were the main reasons of heterogeneity. After subgroup analysis, the I2 values of heterogeneity decreased no matter whether the division was by sample number or number of surgeons involved in the whole procedure (Fig. 3B and C). Moreover, the 3-year graft survival rate of patients who received DALK by a single surgeon was 93.8% (96.4%, 100%; P < .001), higher than those who received surgery by multiple surgeons (89.3% [86.3%, 92.3%], P < .001).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Forest graph of 3-year graft survival rate. (A) The 3-year graft survival rate of keratoconus patients after treatment with deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in 9 studies. (B) Subgroup analysis of 3-year graft survival rate when studies were divided into 2 groups according to the sample number. (C) Subgroup analysis of 3-year graft survival rate when studies were divided into 2 groups according to the number of surgeons.

3.2.3. Five-year graft survival rate

Ten survival rates of 1970 patients from 8 studies[21,22,24–26,29–31] were analyzed in this 5-year graft survival rate analysis. The merged graft survival rate was (95% CI): 90.4% (86.0–94.8%), P < .001 with a significant heterogeneity (I2 value: 93.5%) (Fig. 4A). According to the former analysis, subgroup analyses were performed to seek the source of heterogeneity (Fig. 4B). Low heterogeneity of the 5-year graft survival rate was shown in those who received DALK by single surgeon (I2 value: 21.7%, P = .277) (Fig. 4C).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest graph of 5-year graft survival rate. (A) The 5-year graft survival rate of keratoconus patients after treatment with deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in 9 studies. (B) Subgroup analysis of 5-year graft survival rate when studies were divided into 2 groups according to the sample number. (C) Subgroup analysis of 5-year graft survival rate when studies were divided into 2 groups according to the number of surgeons.

However, the 5-year graft survival rate (67%) extracted from Coster et al's study[31] was lower than others, which might have been influenced by the large sample size (317), number of surgeons (single or multiple), and long follow-up period (leading to a high rate of follow-up loss). To explore the sensitivity of the results, 5-year graft survival rate was remerged by excluding studies one by one (Fig. 5). When Coster et al's study was excluded, the merged 5-year graft survival rate of the remaining studies was 93.4% (90.9%, 95.7%), which indicates a significant improvement.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Sensitivity analysis of 5-year graft survival rate.

4. Discussion

Although the symptoms can be improved by wearing contact lenses or receiving IntraCorneal Ring Segments (INTACS) implants, 15% to 20% of patients[32] with keratoconus ultimately require corneal transplant surgery.[33] Despite several comparative studies between PKP and DALK,[34–37] no general agreement has yet been reached on the optimal method.

Graft survival rate is the most important indicator to evaluate the treatment effect of transplantation. Compared with PKP, various rates can be found on the graft survival rate of DALK for keratoconus patients owing to a short application period. In this meta-analysis, we collected and system integrated the graft survival rates to evaluate DALK treatment effects. As shown in our results, the graft survival rate gradually decreased from over time (1 year > 3 years > 5 years). The lowest graft survival rate seen at 5 years could likely be attributed to the long-time accumulation of immunization and the side effects of transplantation. Interestingly, the result of subgroup analysis indicated that the number of surgeons in 1 complete procedure might influence the graft survival rate. We assumed that this might be related to the skill level of the surgeon,[28] or different operational methods. More comprehensive studies should be done to verify this hypothesis.

There are some limitations in this meta-analysis. First, though we focused on the effect of surgical method on graft survival rate, the recruited studies focused on 2 different populations (Mongolian and Caucasian); hence, difference of sample source might have partly contributed to the heterogeneity. Second, it is difficult to carry out a long-term follow-up with a big sample size; some patients were lost to follow-up which resulted in some studies not being analyzed in the subgroup analysis. Third, the included studies were limited by language, as non-English or non-Chinese publications might have been missed. However, the stable results showed by the sensitivity analysis and lower heterogeneity in the subgroup analysis indicate a high quality of this meta-analysis.

This meta-analysis discusses the graft survival rate of DALK on keratoconus patients. Although the survival rate slightly decreases year by year, the entire trend appears relatively stable. Further, all DALK procedures performed by a single surgeon might be helpful to improve the graft survival rate after surgery.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Ling Yuan.

Data curation: Meng Guan, Weijia Zhao, Liuyan Feng.

Formal analysis: Meng Guan, Weijia Zhao, Yang Zhang, Yu Geng, Dongli Li.

Funding acquisition: Ling Yuan.

Investigation: Zonghan Chen, Ling Yuan.

Methodology: Meng Guan, Weijia Zhao, Yu Geng.

Project administration: Ling Yuan.

Resources: Meng Guan, Weijia Zhao, Yang Zhang, Yu Geng, Zonghan Chen, Liuyan Feng.

Software: Meng Guan, Weijia Zhao, Yu Geng, Zonghan Chen, Liuyan Feng.

Supervision: Ling Yuan.

Validation: Yang Zhang, Zonghan Chen, Dongli Li.

Visualization: Yang Zhang, Yu Geng, Liuyan Feng, Dongli Li.

Writing – original draft: Meng Guan, Weijia Zhao.

Writing – review and editing: Ling Yuan.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, DALK = deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, DLKP = deep lamellar keratoplasty, PKP = penetrating keratoplasty.

This study was supported by Yunnan Health Science and Technology Project (Grant No. 2017NS064).

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  • [1].Bawazeer AM, Hodge WG, Lorimer B. Atopy and keratoconus: a multivariate analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:834–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Georgiou T, Funnell CL, Cassels-Brown A, et al. Influence of ethnic origin on the incidence of keratoconus and associated atopic disease in Asians and White patients. Eye (Lond) 2004;18:379–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol 1998;42:297–319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Facts About the Cornea and Corneal Disease. NEI Office of Science Communications, Public Liaison, and Education. Available from: https://www.nei.nih.gov/health/cornealdisease. Retrieved January 1, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Jonas JB, Nangia V, Matin A, et al. Prevalence and associations of keratoconus in rural Maharashtra in central India: the central India eye and medical study. Am J Ophthalmol 2009;148:760–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 1986;101:267–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Romero-Jiménez M, Santodomingo-Rubido J, Wolffsohn JS. Keratoconus: a review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2010;33:157–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Naroo SA. Contact lens & anterior eye. The journal of the British Contact Lens Association. Editorial. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2008;31:173–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Maguire LJ, Bourne WM. Corneal topography of early keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 1989;108:107–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Gokul A, Patel DV, McGhee CN. Dr John Nottingham's 1854 landmark treatise on conical cornea considered in the context of the current knowledge of keratoconus. Cornea 2016;35:673–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Nottingham J. Practical Observations on Conical Cornea: and on the Short Sight, and Other Defects of Vision Connected with it. London: John Churchill; 1854. [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Jhanji V, Sharma N, Vajpayee RB. Management of keratoconus: current scenario. Br J Ophthalmol 2011;95:1044–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Krachmer JH, Feder RS, Belin MW. Keratoconus and related noninflammatory corneal thinning disorders. Surv Ophthalmol 1984;28:293–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Troutman RC, Lawless MA. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. Cornea 1987;6:298–305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].The Australian Corneal Graft Registry. 1990 to 1992 report. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1993;21:1–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Lim L, Pesudovs K, Coster DJ. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: visual outcome and success. Ophthalmology 2000;107:1125–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Al-Kharashi SA, Al-Obailan MM, Almohaimeed M, et al. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2009;23:203–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Watson SL, Ramsay A, Dart JK, et al. Comparison of deep lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1676–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Gonzalez A, Price MO, Feng MT, et al. Immunologic rejection episodes after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty: incidence and risk factors. Cornea 2017;36:1076–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Han DCY, Mehta JS, Por YM, et al. Comparison of outcomes of lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 2009;148:744–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Kasbekar SA, Jones MNA, Ahmad S, et al. Corneal transplant surgery for keratoconus and the effect of surgeon experience on deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol 2014;158:1239–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Romano V, Iovieno A, Parente G, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in patients with keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;159:505–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Chen Y, Hu D-N, Xia Y, et al. Comparison of femtosecond laser-assisted deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus. BMC Ophthalmol 2015;15:144–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].MacIntyre R, Chow S-P, Chan E, et al. Long-term outcomes of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in Australian keratoconus patients. Cornea 2014;33:6–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Feizi S, Javadi MA, Khajuee-Kermani P, et al. Repeat keratoplasty for failed deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in keratoconus: incidence, indications, and outcomes. Cornea 2017;36:535–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Shimazaki J, Ishii N, Shinzawa M, et al. How much progress has been made in corneal transplantation? Cornea 2015;34:S105–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Cohen AW, Goins KM, Sutphin JE, et al. Penetrating keratoplasty versus deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for the treatment of keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol 2010;30:675–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Jones MNA, Armitage WJ, Ayliffe W, et al. Penetrating and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for keratoconus: a comparison of graft outcomes in the United Kingdom. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:5625–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Feizi S, Jafarinasab MA, Javadi F, et al. Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty in keratoconic patients with versus without vernal keratoconjunctivitis. J Ophthal Vis Res 2015;10:112–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Zhang Y-M, Wu S-Q, Yao Y-F. Long-term comparison of full-bed deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in treating keratoconus. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2013;14:438–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Coster DJ, Lowe MT, Keane MC, et al. A comparison of lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty outcomes: a registry study. Ophthalmology 2014;121:979–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].National Keratoconus Foundation. National Keratoconus Foundation: Research Overview. Available from: http://www.nkcf.org.http://www.nkcf.org. Retrieved August 20, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Javadi MA, Motlagh BF, Jafarinasab MR, et al. Outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus. Cornea 2005;24:941–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Borderie VM, Sandali O, Bullet J, et al. Long-term results of deep anterior lamellar versus penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2012;119:249–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Donoso R, Díaz C, Villavicencio P. Comparative study of keratoconus between Anwar's deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty versus converted penetrating keratoplasty. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2015;90:257–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Khattak A, Nakhli FR, Al-Arfaj KM, et al. Comparison of outcomes and complications of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty performed in a large group of patients with keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol 2018;38:985–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Yüksel B, Kandemir B, Uzunel UD, et al. Comparison of visual and topographic outcomes of deep-anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in keratoconus. Int J Ophthalmol 2017;10:385–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES