ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2020
[Appearance, recurrence and prognosis of immunological graft rejection after penetrating keratoplasty].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of corneal allograft rejection in post-penetrating keratoplasty patients: a retrospective analysis.Cell and tissue banking · 2026Article
- Outcomes after reversed corneal graft rejection: a report from the European VISICORT project.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Review for special issue: Corneal lamellar surgery: Present outcomes and future perspectives.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the patterns of immunological graft rejection reactions (IAR) after penetrating keratoplasty (KPL) and to assess the prognosis for preservation of transparency of the corneal graft. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn the period from 2006 to 2015 a total of 190 IAR, which occurred in 120 eyes of 119 patients, were retrospectively analyzed. The underlying disease, number of previous KPL and IAR and measures of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA, logMAR) and pachymetry at the time points T1 = postoperatively, T2 = acute IAR, T3 = follow-up at 6 weeks and T4 = follow-up at 3-12 months were recorded. A successful treatment was defined as a lack of early recurrence (6-12 weeks after treatment) or the necessity for repeating the KPL. Data were compared using the χ
resultsThe temporal analysis showed a median rejection-free interval of 19.3 months after the previous KPL (95% confidence interval, CI 14.7-26.6 months). In 138 out of 190 cases (72.6%) the IAR could be successfully treated, 12 (6.3%) suffered an early recurrence and 40 (21%) were irreversible. Despite a significant decrease of BCVA at T2 from 0.5 ± 0.4 at T1 to 0.7 ± 0.5 at T2 (p < 0.001), the comparison with the follow-up at 3-12 months (T1 vs. T4) showed no significant differences. The pachymetry at the thinnest point showed significant changes from T1 (535.4 ± 64.1 µm) to T2 (636.1 ± 102.1 µm; p < 0.001). Despite a significant reduction in thickness at T3 (607.3 ± 114.0 µm, p = 0.03), the corneal grafts were still significantly thicker in the follow-up at 3-12 months (591.8 ± 116.8 µm; p < 0.001; T1 vs. T4).
conclusionWith closely monitored aftercare following surgery IAR after KPL is rare. In most cases IAR typically occurs in the second postoperative year after KPL and under adequate treatment is reversible in approximately 75% of the cases. While BCVA showed a good recovery until the end of the follow-up period, the corneal grafts were still significantly thicker in the long-term after IAR (7.7-9.7%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.