Incidence of Corneal Graft Failure with Glaucoma Drainage Device Placement in the Anterior Chamber Compared to the Ciliary Sulcus.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Ophthalmology and Therapy Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-23 DOI:10.1007/s40123-025-01145-8

Emmeline J Kim, Monica K Ertel, Jennifer L Patnaik, Maxwell Mayeda, Deidre St Peter, Galia A Deitz, Jeffrey R SooHoo, Mina B Pantcheva, Malik Y Kahook, Leonard K Seibold, Karen L Christopher, Cara E Capitena Young

{"title":"Incidence of Corneal Graft Failure with Glaucoma Drainage Device Placement in the Anterior Chamber Compared to the Ciliary Sulcus.","authors":"Emmeline J Kim, Monica K Ertel, Jennifer L Patnaik, Maxwell Mayeda, Deidre St Peter, Galia A Deitz, Jeffrey R SooHoo, Mina B Pantcheva, Malik Y Kahook, Leonard K Seibold, Karen L Christopher, Cara E Capitena Young","doi":"10.1007/s40123-025-01145-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the rate of corneal graft failure in eyes with glaucoma drainage device (GDD) placed in the anterior chamber (AC) versus the ciliary sulcus (CS).Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of eyes with coexisting corneal transplant and GDD between January 2014 and December 2021 at an academic medical center. The primary outcome was incidence of corneal transplant failure. Groups were compared with logistic regression modeling utilizing generalized estimating equations with an unstructured correlation to account for patients with two eyes included. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence limits were determined for the primary outcome. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to demonstrate the time to failure.Results: Among 58 eyes, the graft failure rate for GDDs placed in the AC versus CS was 42.5% and 10.5%, respectively (p = 0.05). Male patients had higher odds of failure, OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.1, 10.4, p = 0.03). Maximum intraocular pressure, topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor use, and type of corneal graft were not significantly associated with failure. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve demonstrated higher corneal transplant failure probabilities for eyes with GDD in the AC versus CS (p = 0.06). GDD location, after adjusting for sex, was not significantly associated with failure, OR 3.0 (95% CI 0.8, 11.6, p = 0.10).Conclusions: Corneal transplant failure rates were four times higher in eyes with GDDs in the AC compared to the CS, but the difference was not statistically significant. Further studies with larger sample sizes and follow-up are needed to fully explore differences in failure rates by GDD placement.","PeriodicalId":19623,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","volume":"14 6","pages":"1297-1309"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12069204/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-025-01145-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the rate of corneal graft failure in eyes with glaucoma drainage device (GDD) placed in the anterior chamber (AC) versus the ciliary sulcus (CS).

Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of eyes with coexisting corneal transplant and GDD between January 2014 and December 2021 at an academic medical center. The primary outcome was incidence of corneal transplant failure. Groups were compared with logistic regression modeling utilizing generalized estimating equations with an unstructured correlation to account for patients with two eyes included. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence limits were determined for the primary outcome. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to demonstrate the time to failure.

Results: Among 58 eyes, the graft failure rate for GDDs placed in the AC versus CS was 42.5% and 10.5%, respectively (p = 0.05). Male patients had higher odds of failure, OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.1, 10.4, p = 0.03). Maximum intraocular pressure, topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor use, and type of corneal graft were not significantly associated with failure. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve demonstrated higher corneal transplant failure probabilities for eyes with GDD in the AC versus CS (p = 0.06). GDD location, after adjusting for sex, was not significantly associated with failure, OR 3.0 (95% CI 0.8, 11.6, p = 0.10).

Conclusions: Corneal transplant failure rates were four times higher in eyes with GDDs in the AC compared to the CS, but the difference was not statistically significant. Further studies with larger sample sizes and follow-up are needed to fully explore differences in failure rates by GDD placement.

查看原文本刊更多论文

青光眼前房引流装置放置与睫状沟放置的比较。

前言：本研究旨在评估青光眼引流装置（GDD）放置于前房（AC）与睫状沟（CS）的角膜移植失败率。方法：回顾性分析某学术医疗中心2014年1月至2021年12月期间并发角膜移植和GDD的病例。主要观察指标是角膜移植失败的发生率。采用逻辑回归模型对两组患者进行比较，采用非结构化相关的广义估计方程来解释双眼患者。确定了主要结局的校正优势比（OR）和95%置信限。Kaplan-Meier曲线用于演示失效时间。结果：58只眼的移植失败率分别为42.5%和10.5% （p = 0.05）。男性患者失败的几率更高，OR为3.5 （95% CI 1.1, 10.4, p = 0.03）。最大眼压、外用碳酸酐酶抑制剂和角膜移植类型与失败无显著相关。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线显示，与CS相比，AC组GDD患者的角膜移植失败概率更高（p = 0.06）。经性别调整后，GDD位置与失败无显著相关，OR为3.0 （95% CI 0.8, 11.6, p = 0.10）。结论：角膜移植失败率AC组比CS组高4倍，但差异无统计学意义。进一步的研究需要更大的样本量和随访来充分探索GDD放置对失败率的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ophthalmology and Therapy OPHTHALMOLOGY-

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

3.00%

发文量

157

审稿时长

6 weeks

期刊介绍： Aims and Scope Ophthalmology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from preclinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of ophthalmological therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Ophthalmology and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of ophthalmic therapies. Open Access All articles published by Ophthalmology and Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Ophthalmology and Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €5250/$6000/£4300. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Ophthalmology and Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.