Keratoplasty in the United States: A 10-year review from 2005 through 2014

Choul Yong Park, Jimmy K. Lee, Patrick K. Gore, Chi Yeon Lim, Roy S. Chuck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

173 Scopus citations


Purpose To report evolving indications and preferred techniques of corneal transplantation in the United States. Design Retrospective review. Methods Annual reports from the Eye Bank Association of America on corneal graft distribution in the United States from 2005 through 2014 were reviewed. Main Outcome Measures Number and percentage of corneal grafts distributed for various types of keratoplasty and their surgical indications in the United States. Results The total number of corneal transplants increased from 44 277 in 2005 to 46 513 in 2014. In the past decade, penetrating keratoplasty dramatically decreased (from 95% to 42%) and largely has been replaced by various lamellar keratoplasty (LK) techniques (from 5% to 58%). Descemet stripping (automated) endothelial keratoplasty was the most common (50%) type of corneal transplantation performed in the United Stated in 2014. The volume of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) has been doubling every year since 2011 and accounted for 11% of total endothelial keratoplasties in 2014. There was a significant shift in indication for corneal transplantation, with Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy (22%) being the most common, followed by corneal edema occurring after cataract surgery (12%) in 2014. Eye banks supplied precut corneal grafts for 68% of LK techniques in 2014. Conclusions In the United States, there has been a major shift in preferred keratoplasty techniques over the past decade, with a wide adoption of new LK techniques.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2432-2442
Number of pages11
Issue number12
StatePublished - Dec 2015

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology


Dive into the research topics of 'Keratoplasty in the United States: A 10-year review from 2005 through 2014'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this