Hi All,
A funny thing happened to me over the weekend, which I thought IÂ’d share with you all.
I was asked whether I still suffer from KC even though I had a Corneal Graft. My automatic answer was YES!!!
Therefore my question to the forum is for those who have had a Corneal Graft, do you consider yourself to be a KC suffer still.
Having had time to think, rethink and think again I am now confused and wondered what the others thought?
Dipesh
KC or not ???
Moderators: Anne Klepacz, John Smith, Sweet
-
GarethB
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4916
- Joined: Sat 21 Aug 2004 3:31 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and contact lenses
- Location: Warwickshire
Hi Dipesh,
Personally I see the graft as a long term management once all othe avenues have been exhausted.
To be honest the people I am awar of that have had graft issues, is where they still need visual assistance due to the way the graft has taken. This may mean contacts or glasses.
My understanding from my speciallist is that it is extremely rare for a grafted eye to ehibit the signs of KC which is what happend to me.
The graft is fine, but it is the tissue the graft is attached to that has decided to show the signs of KC again, so distorting the graft much like KC in anyone else.
Having said that, many people are no longer seen by a specialist a few years post graft if the eye is considerd OK and any further treatment would be by a high street optom who usually see the patient as mildly shortsighted with a bit of astigmatism. These people effectivly dissappear and no mor is heard of them making studies in to post graftpatients over 5 years difficult. These people only come back on the scene again if they have a problem like me, in my case 18 years post graft.
I suppose for most it might be seen as a 'cure' and a minority as another form of management.
I too would like to hear other peoples views on this.
Good question.
Gareth
Personally I see the graft as a long term management once all othe avenues have been exhausted.
To be honest the people I am awar of that have had graft issues, is where they still need visual assistance due to the way the graft has taken. This may mean contacts or glasses.
My understanding from my speciallist is that it is extremely rare for a grafted eye to ehibit the signs of KC which is what happend to me.
The graft is fine, but it is the tissue the graft is attached to that has decided to show the signs of KC again, so distorting the graft much like KC in anyone else.
Having said that, many people are no longer seen by a specialist a few years post graft if the eye is considerd OK and any further treatment would be by a high street optom who usually see the patient as mildly shortsighted with a bit of astigmatism. These people effectivly dissappear and no mor is heard of them making studies in to post graftpatients over 5 years difficult. These people only come back on the scene again if they have a problem like me, in my case 18 years post graft.
I suppose for most it might be seen as a 'cure' and a minority as another form of management.
I too would like to hear other peoples views on this.
Good question.
Gareth
-
Knight
- Chatterbox
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Thu 12 May 2005 1:31 pm
- Keratoconus: Yes, I have KC
- Vision: Graft(s) and contact lenses
- Location: classified
well I haven't had my graft just yet, but then again I am only getting it in one eye, so I'd still consider myself a KC sufferer althou my right eye isn't nearly as bad.
That said, even if I had a graft in both eyes, I'd still consider myself a KC sufferer but more so a KC casualty as it were bc it was KC that led me to have the graft and regardless of how much time went by I'd always have KC on my mind, not bc I've lived with it for so long, but mainly bc what I've had to adapt to and how it changed my life in many respects.
Not to mean anything bad by this but even reformed alcoholics consider themselves always an alcoholic, even when they haven't touched a drop of drink in years, similarly, KC even managed by a graft I think means I still have KC as there is always a slim chance it could grow back... even if it didn't and regardless of anything directly related to KC, I'd still be in a phase of, KC aftermath as it were and still having to manage around corneal graft issues, if any...
I may not have KC after a graft but I'd certainly still have to 'live' with KC and its affects, so yeah whatever happens I believe I'll always suffer KC.
That said, even if I had a graft in both eyes, I'd still consider myself a KC sufferer but more so a KC casualty as it were bc it was KC that led me to have the graft and regardless of how much time went by I'd always have KC on my mind, not bc I've lived with it for so long, but mainly bc what I've had to adapt to and how it changed my life in many respects.
Not to mean anything bad by this but even reformed alcoholics consider themselves always an alcoholic, even when they haven't touched a drop of drink in years, similarly, KC even managed by a graft I think means I still have KC as there is always a slim chance it could grow back... even if it didn't and regardless of anything directly related to KC, I'd still be in a phase of, KC aftermath as it were and still having to manage around corneal graft issues, if any...
I may not have KC after a graft but I'd certainly still have to 'live' with KC and its affects, so yeah whatever happens I believe I'll always suffer KC.
-
jayuk
- Ambassador
- Posts: 2148
- Joined: Sun 21 Mar 2004 1:50 pm
- Location: London / Manchester / Cheshire
Hi
On a eye to eye basis; and assuming you have had the graft on ONE eye, than I wuld say No I only have it in one eye now.
I raised this question about whether it would come back into the grafted eye with my eye centre and the current chain of thought within the fraternity is that KC does NOT come back.T he folowing allegedly happens
<As GarethB mentioned>1) The host cornea has not had the keratoconic tissue removed and thus starts to get worse;pulling on the donor cornea
As GarethB also said, many are not seen enough post op, thus the above chain of thougt has more than likely stemmed from a small amount of research. But again, its food for thought.
This goes back to my concerns on when having the surgery...you need to have a very good Opthamologist who cuts out the diseased tissue entirely when under the scope. Many do not inspect closely, I BELEIVE, and are prone to only cut the area where the cone is....but you need to understand that when the cone is created many times the change has occured to do movement in the tissue further a field
I was given a really good example of this. My surgeon was about to perform a graft on a overseas patient and on the day of the surgery he closely examined the eye for any irregularities. He found that the KC, although was centrally located with its "coning" effect, there were slight signs only detectable under the scope, of it being alittle wider. Thus he performed a 11mm diameter graft..as opposed to the standard 8.5mm graft. Subsequently the patient had 20/20, 20/40 unaided vision and 2 year follow up has been stable.
Its a funni old game! lol
On a eye to eye basis; and assuming you have had the graft on ONE eye, than I wuld say No I only have it in one eye now.
I raised this question about whether it would come back into the grafted eye with my eye centre and the current chain of thought within the fraternity is that KC does NOT come back.T he folowing allegedly happens
<As GarethB mentioned>1) The host cornea has not had the keratoconic tissue removed and thus starts to get worse;pulling on the donor cornea
As GarethB also said, many are not seen enough post op, thus the above chain of thougt has more than likely stemmed from a small amount of research. But again, its food for thought.
This goes back to my concerns on when having the surgery...you need to have a very good Opthamologist who cuts out the diseased tissue entirely when under the scope. Many do not inspect closely, I BELEIVE, and are prone to only cut the area where the cone is....but you need to understand that when the cone is created many times the change has occured to do movement in the tissue further a field
I was given a really good example of this. My surgeon was about to perform a graft on a overseas patient and on the day of the surgery he closely examined the eye for any irregularities. He found that the KC, although was centrally located with its "coning" effect, there were slight signs only detectable under the scope, of it being alittle wider. Thus he performed a 11mm diameter graft..as opposed to the standard 8.5mm graft. Subsequently the patient had 20/20, 20/40 unaided vision and 2 year follow up has been stable.
Its a funni old game! lol
KC is about facing the challenges it creates rather than accepting the problems it generates -
(C) Copyright 2005 KP
(C) Copyright 2005 KP
-
jayuk
- Ambassador
- Posts: 2148
- Joined: Sun 21 Mar 2004 1:50 pm
- Location: London / Manchester / Cheshire
Yes GarethB
Its such an easy thing to miss as KC in the cornea doesnt necessary conclude itself at the Cone.....thats why I beleive many have experienced this "return" of KC.......but again without followup close monitoring we can only make assumptions
Its such an easy thing to miss as KC in the cornea doesnt necessary conclude itself at the Cone.....thats why I beleive many have experienced this "return" of KC.......but again without followup close monitoring we can only make assumptions
KC is about facing the challenges it creates rather than accepting the problems it generates -
(C) Copyright 2005 KP
(C) Copyright 2005 KP
Return to “General Discussion Forum”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests