Corneal Graft Rejection Clinical Presentation

  • Author: Jason Jacobs, MD; Chief Editor: Hampton Roy Sr, MD   more...
 
Updated: Feb 17, 2010
 

History

Diagnosis of corneal graft rejection should be made only in grafts that have remained clear for at least 2 weeks following keratoplasty. By observing this guideline, graft rejection can be easily distinguished from other causes of graft failure that are more common in the early postoperative period (eg, primary donor failure). A sensitized host may rarely exhibit immunologic graft rejection before this 2-week period. Graft rejection has been observed to occur as late as 20 years after transplantation. Incidence of graft rejection is greatest in the first year following transplantation.

  • No symptoms are related universally to corneal graft rejection. Although, astute patients may complain of the following:
    • Decrease in visual acuity
    • Redness
    • Pain
    • Irritation
    • Photophobia
  • Depending on the severity of the graft rejection, patients may be asymptomatic. Any patient with a corneal graft should be instructed to seek ophthalmologic care if these symptoms occur for more than a few hours.
Next

Physical

  • Animal models of graft rejection reveal that the 3 corneal layers, epithelium, stroma, and endothelium, can be rejected separately. Although these separate rejection processes have been observed in humans, many patients present with combinations of epithelial, stromal, and endothelial rejection.
  • Epithelial rejection presents in one of two manners, as follows:
    • The first type is characterized by an irregular, elevated epithelial rejection line that stains with fluorescein or rose bengal. The rejection line progresses rapidly across the cornea over several days to 2 weeks. A variant of this presentation may occur in which the epithelial rejection line takes the form of a ring, concentric with the limbus, which begins peripherally at the graft-host junction and progresses by shrinking centrally to a point. The rejection line represents a region of destruction of donor epithelium; the resulting epithelial defect is covered by host epithelium that grows inward from the remaining host cornea and limbus to cover the graft.
    • The second type of epithelial rejection is characterized by the presence of subepithelial infiltrates. These infiltrates consist of leukocytes and frequently have an appearance similar to the subepithelial infiltrates seen in adenoviral keratoconjunctivitis. These lesions may change location and shape over time, and they generally disappear on their own after several weeks.
    • Both types of epithelial rejection are steroid responsive, but, in many cases, the patient is either asymptomatic or has symptoms only of minimal irritation. As a result, the patient may not present to the ophthalmologist during these episodes. Although epithelial rejection generally is self-limited and tends not to cause visual disturbance on its own, it should be treated when found on examination as it may herald a more severe endothelial rejection.
  • Generally, stromal rejection in humans accompanies endothelial rejection and is difficult to demonstrate alone. It is characterized by peripheral full-thickness haze with limbal injection in a previously clear graft. An arc-shaped infiltrate may be noted peripherally at the graft-host junction that progresses centrally.
  • Endothelial rejections include the following:[1]
    • Classic endothelial rejection presents with an endothelial rejection line (Khodadoust line) that usually begins at a vascularized portion of the peripheral graft-host junction and progresses, if untreated, across the endothelial surface over several days. The rejection line consists of mononuclear white cells that damage endothelial cells as the line sweeps across the endothelium.
    • Generally, a mild-to-moderate anterior chamber reaction is present. The damaged endothelium is unable to properly dehydrate the corneal graft; as a result, the donor cornea is clear ahead of the rejection line and is cloudy and edematous behind it.
    • A second variant of endothelial rejection is more diffuse in character, with scattered keratic precipitates and an anterior chamber reaction indicative of endothelial rejection and damage. In this type of endothelial rejection, stromal edema is typically not localized, but rather generalized throughout the graft, consistent with the generalized endothelial damage. The combination of keratic precipitates, an anterior chamber reaction, circumcorneal injection, and regions of corneal edema should be diagnosed as corneal graft rejection. In some cases, it may be difficult to distinguish graft edema from rejection and graft edema from endothelial insufficiency. Because rejection may be reversible, treating patients as if they have graft rejection is best.
Previous
Next

Causes

  • Risk factors for rejection
    • A great deal of energy has been expended in trying to determine clinical risk factors for corneal graft rejection. Because corneal graft rejection is the leading cause of graft failure in the late postoperative period, being able to identify and treat those patients at highest risk for graft rejection is important. Unfortunately, patients undergoing corneal transplantation represent a heterogeneous population, and proving that certain factors uniformly increase the risk of graft rejection is difficult. Differences in study designs exacerbate these difficulties.
    • Potential risk factors for corneal graft rejection are outlined below.
      • Host corneal vascularization
      • Larger and eccentric grafts
      • Human leukocyte antigen A (HLA-A) and human leukocyte antigen (HLA-B) and ABO blood type incompatibility
      • Presence of donor epithelium upon transplantation
      • History of previous graft failure of any cause
      • Bilateral penetrating keratoplasty
      • Pretransplantation corneal tissue media and preservation
      • Host age (lower risk with age >60 y, much higher risk in infants)
    • Of these risk factors, the only factor that has been decidedly proven to increase the risk of rejection is host corneal vascularization. Multiple studies have confirmed an increased risk of corneal graft rejection with increasing host vascularization, ranging from rates of 0-10% of graft rejection in avascular host corneas to rates of up to 25-50% in severely vascularized host corneas. The precise cause for this increased risk is unclear, although it is believed to be due to the relative loss of immune privilege that accompanies the usually avascular central cornea.
    • The other risk factors listed above remain in some dispute. In some cases, multiple studies have yielded contradictory results, whereas, in other cases, an insufficient number of clinical studies exist. In all cases, these risk factors are modified by the particular clinical situation. In particular, studies regarding the role of the major histocompatibility complex and HLAs have yielded contradictory data, although several studies indicate a trend toward a decreased incidence of graft rejection occurring in matched corneal grafts. At the present time, corneal grafts are not HLA typed and matched, unlike other organ transplants. Further evidence is needed to justify the added cost and complexity of performing HLA typing prior to corneal transplantation.
Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Jason Jacobs, MD  Clinical Faculty, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

Jason Jacobs, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Ophthalmology, International Society of Refractive Surgery, and Phi Beta Kappa

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Michael Taravella, MD  Director of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Rocky Mountain Lions Eye Institute; Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine

Michael Taravella, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Medical Association, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, and Eye Bank Association of America

Disclosure: Alcon Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Allergan Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Surgical Specialties Honoraria Speaking and teaching; BD Surgical Supplies Honoraria Speaking and teaching

Specialty Editor Board

Jack L Wilson, PhD  Distinguished Professor, Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Tennessee at Memphis

Jack L Wilson, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Anatomists, American Association of Clinical Anatomists, and American Heart Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Simon K Law, MD, PharmD  Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, Jules Stein Eye Institute; Chief of Section of Ophthalmology Surgical Services, Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare Center, West Los Angeles

Simon K Law, MD, PharmD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Glaucoma Society, and Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Christopher J Rapuano, MD  Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University; Co-Chairman of the Cornea Service, Co-Chairman of Refractive Surgery Department, Wills Eye Institute

Christopher J Rapuano, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Cornea Society, Eye Bank Association of America, International Society of Refractive Surgery, and Pan-American Association of Ophthalmology

Disclosure: Allergan Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Allergan Consulting fee Consulting; Alcon Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Inspire Honoraria Speaking and teaching; RPS Ownership interest Other; Vistakon Honoraria Speaking and teaching; EyeGate Pharma Consulting; Inspire Consulting fee Consulting; Bausch & Lomb Honoraria Speaking and teaching

Lance L Brown, OD, MD  Ophthalmologist, Affiliated With Freeman Hospital and St John's Hospital, Regional Eye Center, Joplin, Missouri

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Hampton Roy Sr, MD  Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Hampton Roy Sr, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American College of Surgeons, and Pan-American Association of Ophthalmology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Lee HS, Kim MS. Influential factors on the survival of endothelial cells after penetrating keratoplasty. Eur J Ophthalmol. Nov-Dec 2009;19(6):930-5. [Medline].

  2. Bertelmann E, Pleyer U. Immunomodulatory therapy in ophthalmology - is there a place for topical application?. Ophthalmologica. Nov-Dec 2004;218(6):359-67. [Medline].

  3. Sloper CM, Powell RJ, Dua HS. Tacrolimus (FK506) in the management of high-risk corneal and limbal grafts. Ophthalmology. Oct 2001;108(10):1838-44. [Medline].

  4. Boisjoly HM, Tourigny R, Bazin R, Laughrea PA, Dube I, Chamberland G, et al. Risk factors of corneal graft failure. Ophthalmology. Nov 1993;100(11):1728-35. [Medline].

  5. Chen YF, Gebhardt BM, Reidy JJ, Kaufman HE. Cyclosporine-containing collagen shields suppress corneal allograft rejection. Am J Ophthalmol. Feb 15 1990;109(2):132-7. [Medline].

  6. Hegde S, Beauregard C, Mayhew E. CD4(+) T-cell-mediated mechanisms of corneal allograft rejection: role of Fas-induced apoptosis. Transplantation. Jan 15 2005;79(1):23-31. [Medline].

  7. Hill JC. Systemic cyclosporine in high-risk keratoplasty. Short- versus long-term therapy. Ophthalmology. Jan 1994;101(1):128-33. [Medline].

  8. Hill JC. The use of cyclosporine in high-risk keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol. May 15 1989;107(5):506-10. [Medline].

  9. Hill JC, Maske R, Watson P. Corticosteroids in corneal graft rejection. Oral versus single pulse therapy. Ophthalmology. Mar 1991;98(3):329-33. [Medline].

  10. Hwang DG, Stern WH, Hwang PH, MacGowan-Smith LA. Collagen shield enhancement of topical dexamethasone penetration. Arch Ophthalmol. Sep 1989;107(9):1375-80. [Medline].

  11. Khodadoust AA, Silverstein AM. Transplantation and rejection of individual layers of the cornea. In: Investigative Ophthalmologic and Visual Sciences. Vol 8. 180-195.

  12. Reidy JJ, Gebhardt BM, Kaufman HE. The collagen shield. A new vehicle for delivery of cyclosporin A to the eye. Cornea. Jul 1990;9(3):196-9. [Medline].

  13. Smolin G, Thoft RA. The cornea. In: Scientific Foundations and Clinical Practice. 3rd ed. Lippincott William & Wilkins; 1994.

  14. Wang M, Lin Y, Chen J, Liu Y, Xie H, Ye C. Studies on the effects of the immunosuppressant FK-506 on the high-risk corneal graft rejection. Yan Ke Xue Bao. Sep 2002;18(3):160-4. [Medline].

  15. Wilson SE, Kaufman HE. Graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty. Surv Ophthalmol. Mar-Apr 1990;34(5):325-56. [Medline].

Previous
Next
 
This severely vascularized cornea would be at high risk for graft rejection following a penetrating keratoplasty. This patient experienced Stevens-Johnson syndrome.
This is an example of an acute graft rejection episode. Note the graft edema, Descemet folds, and keratic precipitates.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2012 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.