[HLA matching in keratoplasty: lessons learned from lamellar techniques].

BACKGROUND The immunological mechanisms of graft rejections after penetrating keratoplasty are largely investigated in rodent models. Here, antigens are predominantly processed by host antigen presenting cells (APCs). For this reason, graft rejections are not primarily triggered by mismatches in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). Consequently, MHC matching (equivalent of HLA matching) does not robustly prevent immunological graft rejections in mice. This, however, may not apply to humans because anatomy and the clinical picture of immune reactions differ vastly. METHODS Immunological experiments are not feasible in humans for ethical reasons. However, the recent surgical modifications in keratoplasty inadvertently gave rise to several interesting immunological field experiments. We herein discuss the potential insight into human graft rejections from selected clinical observations. On this basis, we have evaluated HLA matching for keratoplasty techniques. RESULTS Several clinical observations hint towards an active role of donor-derived APCs in graft rejections after human keratoplasty. Additionally, donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies may play a significant role. On this basis we suggest that HLA matching is potentially beneficial in human keratoplasty in contrast to the situation in mice. CONCLUSIONS Graft rejections are rarely observed after Descemet membrane keratoplasty (DMEK). For this reason, we do not recommend HLA matching here. The same is true for deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, where graft rejections can usually be treated well. However, HLA matching is a viable option in penetrating keratoplasty. This is especially true for high-risk eyes.

[1]  E. Tu,et al.  Stromal Rejection Following Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty: Implications for Postoperative Care , 2012, Cornea.

[2]  S. Sel,et al.  A novel ELISA-based crossmatch procedure to detect donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies responsible for corneal allograft rejections. , 2012, Journal of immunological methods.

[3]  J. Schwartzkopff,et al.  Operational post-keratopasty graft tolerance due to differential HLAMatchmaker matching , 2010, Molecular vision.

[4]  M. Kanavi,et al.  Cellular Changes of Donor Corneal Tissue After Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty Versus Penetrating Keratoplasty in Eyes With Keratoconus: A Confocal Study , 2010, Cornea.

[5]  R. Dana,et al.  Role of CCR7 in facilitating direct allosensitization and regulatory T-cell function in high-risk corneal transplantation. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  L. K. Ely,et al.  T cell allorecognition and MHC restriction--A case of Jekyll and Hyde? , 2008, Molecular immunology.

[7]  N. Romani,et al.  Characterization of antigen-presenting cells in fresh and cultured human corneas using novel dendritic cell markers. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  J. Niederkorn The induction of anterior chamber-associated immune deviation. , 2007, Chemical immunology and allergy.

[9]  F. Hoffmann,et al.  Typisierung beim HLA-Matching , 2007, Der Ophthalmologe.

[10]  Y. El-Shabrawi,et al.  Influence of donor storage time on corneal allograft survival. , 2004, Ophthalmology.

[11]  T. Reinhard,et al.  Penetrating limbo-keratoplasty for granular and lattice corneal dystrophy: survival of donor limbal stem cells and intermediate-term clinical results. , 2004, Ophthalmology.

[12]  P. Wernet,et al.  Long-term results of allogeneic penetrating limbo-keratoplasty in total limbal stem cell deficiency. , 2004, Ophthalmology.

[13]  F. Claas,et al.  Beneficial effect of matching at the HLA-A and -B amino-acid triplet level on rejection-free clear graft survival in penetrating keratoplasty1 , 2004, Transplantation.

[14]  D. Böhringer,et al.  Systematische EDV-gestützte Erfassung der Nachuntersuchungsdaten von Keratoplastikpatienten - 10-jähriger Erfahrungsbericht , 2003 .

[15]  E. Mayhew,et al.  Are corneal cells susceptible to antibody-mediated killing in corneal allograft rejection? , 2003, Transplant immunology.

[16]  P. Wernet,et al.  HLA class I and II matching improves prognosis in penetrating normal-risk keratoplasty. , 2003, Developments in ophthalmology.

[17]  J. Streilein,et al.  The role of minor histocompatibility alloantigens in penetrating keratoplasty. , 2003, Developments in ophthalmology.

[18]  B. Boehm,et al.  The relative contribution of direct and indirect antigen recognition pathways to the alloresponse and graft rejection depends upon the nature of the transplant. , 2002, Human immunology.

[19]  M. Dana,et al.  Draining Lymph Nodes Play an Essential Role in Alloimmunity Generated in Response to High-Risk Corneal Transplantation , 2002, Cornea.

[20]  S. Böhringer,et al.  Predicting time on the waiting list for HLA matched corneal grafts. , 2002, Tissue antigens.

[21]  René J Duquesnoy,et al.  HLAMatchmaker: a molecularly based algorithm for histocompatibility determination. I. Description of the algorithm. , 2002, Human immunology.

[22]  S. Daya,et al.  Living related conjunctival limbal allograft for the treatment of stem cell deficiency. , 2001, Ophthalmology.

[23]  P. Laughrea,et al.  Role of presensitization and donor-recipient crossmatching in corneal graft outcome. , 1998, Cornea.

[24]  P. Komericki,et al.  Bedeutung der Gewebslagerzeit für den Erfolg nach kornealer Transplantation , 1997, Der Ophthalmologe.

[25]  F. Polack HISTOPATHOLOGICAL AND HISTOCHEMICAL ALTERATIONS IN THE EARLY STAGES OF CORNEAL GRAFT REJECTION , 1962, The Journal of experimental medicine.