Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Ophthalmology 2/2016

01-04-2016 | Original Paper

Are our cornea waiting lists dynamic enough?

Authors: Melis Palamar, Sait Egrilmez, Ayse Yagci

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dynamic reality of the corneal transplant (CT) waiting list and if the CT candidates are really eager to operation. We evaluated the response of consecutive 96 CT candidates to call for operation. The age, functional visual acuity, CT indication, waiting period, and the excuse of refusal for candidates that postponed the operation were also evaluated. The patients were classified into two groups according to the availability (Group 1, available; Group 2, unavailable). To find an available candidate for transplantation of 48 consecutive corneal tissues, 96 patients had to be called. The mean age of the patients was 57.49 ± 18.75. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 was 54.28 ± 18.12 (13–80) and 60.44 ± 19.01 (9–88) years, respectively (p = 0.108). It was found that the call refusal was higher in patients elder than age 70 (p = 0.04). The mean time between being added to the list and the call was 22.96 ± 7.80 (9–39) months for Group 1, 27.02 ± 8.25 (9–53) months for Group 2 (p = 0.015). The estimation point for waiting period was 22 months (p = 0.044). The most common reasons of excuse were inconvenience of timing, giving up operation, and secondary health problems, whereas anticoagulant use was the most common reason for postponement. As the waiting period gets longer and CT candidates get older, they tend to give up operation. The secondary health problems and use of systemic anticoagulants are important problems that might cause postponing the CT surgery and ruin the dynamicity of the waiting lists.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Arentsen JJ, Laibson PR (1982) Surgical management of pseudophakic corneal edema: complications and visual results following penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmic Surg 13:371PubMed Arentsen JJ, Laibson PR (1982) Surgical management of pseudophakic corneal edema: complications and visual results following penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmic Surg 13:371PubMed
3.
go back to reference Rasouli M, Caraiscos VB, Slomovic AR (2009) Efficacy of routine notification and request on reducing corneal transplantation wait times in Canada. Can J Ophthalmol 44:31–35CrossRefPubMed Rasouli M, Caraiscos VB, Slomovic AR (2009) Efficacy of routine notification and request on reducing corneal transplantation wait times in Canada. Can J Ophthalmol 44:31–35CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference National Research Council (2002) Visual impairments: determining eligibility for social security benefits. In: Lennie P, Van Hemel SB (eds) Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 64 National Research Council (2002) Visual impairments: determining eligibility for social security benefits. In: Lennie P, Van Hemel SB (eds) Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 64
6.
go back to reference Palamar M, Durusoy R, Egrilmez S, Salis O, Yagci A (2011) Public opinion concerning corneal donation and transplant: a survey from Izmir, Turkey. Exp Clin Transpl 9:134–138 Palamar M, Durusoy R, Egrilmez S, Salis O, Yagci A (2011) Public opinion concerning corneal donation and transplant: a survey from Izmir, Turkey. Exp Clin Transpl 9:134–138
7.
go back to reference Duman F, Kosker M, Suri K et al (2013) Indications and outcomes of corneal transplantation in geriatric patients. Am J Ophthalmol 156:600–607CrossRefPubMed Duman F, Kosker M, Suri K et al (2013) Indications and outcomes of corneal transplantation in geriatric patients. Am J Ophthalmol 156:600–607CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Navon SE, Tham V, Talamo JH (1996) Patient satisfaction after penetrating keratoplasty: comparison of subjective outcomes. In: Proceedings of the American Academy Centennial Congress, abstract book. American Academy Centennial Congress, Chicago, p 133 Navon SE, Tham V, Talamo JH (1996) Patient satisfaction after penetrating keratoplasty: comparison of subjective outcomes. In: Proceedings of the American Academy Centennial Congress, abstract book. American Academy Centennial Congress, Chicago, p 133
9.
go back to reference Williams KA, Ash JK, Pararajasegarum P et al (1991) Long-term outcome after corneal transplantation. Visual results and patient perception of success. Ophthalmology 98:651–657CrossRefPubMed Williams KA, Ash JK, Pararajasegarum P et al (1991) Long-term outcome after corneal transplantation. Visual results and patient perception of success. Ophthalmology 98:651–657CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Mendes F, Schaumberg DA, Navon S et al (2003) Assessment of visual function after corneal transplantation: the quality of life and psychometric assessment after corneal transplantation (Q PACT) study. Am J Ophthalmol 135:785–793CrossRefPubMed Mendes F, Schaumberg DA, Navon S et al (2003) Assessment of visual function after corneal transplantation: the quality of life and psychometric assessment after corneal transplantation (Q PACT) study. Am J Ophthalmol 135:785–793CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Courtright P, Poon CI, Richards JS, Chow DL, Holland SP (1998) Visual function among corneal disease patients waiting for penetrating keratoplasty in British Columbia. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 5:13–20CrossRefPubMed Courtright P, Poon CI, Richards JS, Chow DL, Holland SP (1998) Visual function among corneal disease patients waiting for penetrating keratoplasty in British Columbia. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 5:13–20CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Are our cornea waiting lists dynamic enough?
Authors
Melis Palamar
Sait Egrilmez
Ayse Yagci
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-015-0101-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

International Ophthalmology 2/2016 Go to the issue