Evaluation of the Clinical Findings of Patients with Penetrating Keratoplasty Followed by Telephone Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objectives: To evaluate changes in the clinical findings of keratoplasty patients who could not be examined face-to-face and were followed up by telephone during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and Methods: Patients with penetrating keratoplasty who presented to the cornea department between March 2020 and February 2021 were grouped according to whether they showed clinical deterioration (Group 1: no deterioration, Group 2: deterioration). The patients’ last visit prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and their first visit after the pandemic-related lockdown ended were evaluated. The demographic data, follow-up period, and ophthalmological examination findings of all patients were recorded and the data were compared between the groups. Results: Thirty-five eyes of 35 patients were included in the study. Signs of deterioration were detected in 8 (22.8%) of the patients (Group 1), while no deterioration was detected in 27 (77.2%) of the patients (Group 2). In the last follow-up visit prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 1.26±0.43 LogMAR (range: 0.52-1.80) in Group 1 and 1.41±1.02 LogMAR (range: 0-3.1) in Group 2 (p=0.692). Mean BCVA in the first control during the pandemic was 2.07±0.86 LogMAR (range: 1.3-3.1) in Group 1 and 1.49±1.08 LogMAR (range: 0-3.1) in Group 2 (p=0.08). At the first visit during the COVID-19 pandemic, the mean intraocular pressure of Group 1 was 16.38±8.58 mmHg (range: 0-31), and Group 2 was 17.11±3.7 mmHg (range: 11-26) (p=0.984). Conclusion: The continuation of treatment initiated prior to the pandemic was probably the most important reason why deterioration was not observed in keratoplasty patients. In situations such as pandemics where face-to-face visits with patients may be disrupted, it may be possible to follow the patients safely with telemedicine visits until the difficult circumstances resolve.

[1]  Meral Yüce,et al.  COVID-19 diagnosis —A review of current methods , 2020, Biosensors and Bioelectronics.

[2]  N. Sharma,et al.  COVID-19 and eye banking , 2020, Indian journal of ophthalmology.

[3]  P. Morgan,et al.  The ocular surface, coronaviruses and COVID‐19 , 2020, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[4]  L. Pasquale,et al.  Virtual Ophthalmology: Telemedicine in a COVID-19 Era , 2020, American Journal of Ophthalmology.

[5]  I. Chowers,et al.  Ophthalmology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic , 2020, BMJ Open Ophthalmology.

[6]  N. Lagali,et al.  Repeat Corneal Neovascularization is Characterized by More Aggressive Inflammation and Vessel Invasion Than in the Initial Phase. , 2019, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  K. Maruyama,et al.  Immune privilege in corneal transplantation , 2019, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[8]  I. Mahíllo-Fernández,et al.  Weighing of risk factors for penetrating keratoplasty graft failure: application of Risk Score System. , 2017, International journal of ophthalmology.

[9]  Gilles Thuret,et al.  Global Survey of Corneal Transplantation and Eye Banking. , 2016, JAMA ophthalmology.

[10]  D. Kook,et al.  Perioperative and postoperative risk factors for corneal graft failure , 2014, Clinical ophthalmology.

[11]  D. Ponzin,et al.  Risk Factors for Graft Failure After Penetrating Keratoplasty: 5-Year Follow-Up From the Corneal Transplant Epidemiological Study , 2011, Cornea.

[12]  C. McGhee,et al.  The New Zealand National Eye Bank: Survival and Visual Outcome 1 Year After Penetrating Keratoplasty , 2011, Cornea.

[13]  S. Daya,et al.  Penetrating keratoplasty: outcomes from a corneal unit compared to national data , 2006, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[14]  Robert W. Thompson,et al.  Long-term graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty. , 2003, Ophthalmology.