Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 1861
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2008  |  Volume : 56  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 269-277

Post-penetrating keratoplasty glaucoma


Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Tanuj Dada
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi - 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.41410

Rights and Permissions

Post-penetrating keratoplasty (post-PK) glaucoma is an important cause of irreversible visual loss and graft failure. The etiology for this disorder is multifactorial, and with the use of new diagnostic equipment, it is now possible to elucidate the exact pathophysiology of this condition. A clear understanding of the various mechanisms that operate during different time frames following PK is essential to chalk out the appropriate management algorithms. The various issues with regard to its management, including the putative risk factors, intraocular pressure (IOP) assessment post-PK, difficulties in monitoring with regard to the visual fields and optic nerve evaluation, are discussed. A step-wise approach to management starting from the medical management to surgery with and without metabolites and the various cycloablative procedures in cases of failed filtering procedures and excessive perilimbal scarring is presented. Finally, the important issue of minimizing the incidence of glaucoma following PK, especially through the use of oversized grafts and iris tightening procedures in the form of concomitant iridoplasty are emphasized. It is important to weigh the risk-benefit ratio of any modality used in the treatment of this condition as procedures aimed at IOP reduction, namely trabeculectomy with antimetabolites, and glaucoma drainage devices can trigger graft rejection, whereas cyclodestructive procedures can not only cause graft failure but also precipitate phthisis bulbi. Watchful expectancy and optimal time of intervention can salvage both graft and vision in this challenging condition.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed10272    
    Printed141    
    Emailed10    
    PDF Downloaded1208    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 8    

Recommend this journal